292 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



XIV. Have you examined and determined the 

 extent of agricultural lands within the project? 



XV. Have you examined the canals and lat- 

 erals that have been constructed to serve lands 

 which are not apparently agricultural from view? 



XVI. Have you computed the cost of same 

 and taken this into consideration in your report? 



XVII. In consideration of this entire subject, 

 have you done so with a view of benefits obtained 

 to the farmer, or with a view of protecting the Ser- 

 vice? 



XVIII. Have you investigated the status of 

 litigation concerning Lake Tahoe and the prior right 

 and ownership along the Truckee River, to ascertain 

 whether any benefit can hope to be obtained from 

 the structures built supposed to handle the waters 

 in dispute? 



XIX. Have you examined into the published 

 statements of the. Service in reference to the ques- 

 tion of drainage, and considered, in view of the rep- 

 resentations therein contained, that it is the duty of 

 the Service to adequately drain this project at its 

 own expense? If not, why? 



XX. Do you believe the Government has en- 

 tered into contracts in this project with the water 

 user, and if so, should it carry the same out under 

 conditions in which they now exist? 



XXI. Do you believe that the estimated cost 

 shall govern under the law as to the amount to be 

 paid? 



XXII. Do you believe that the Force Account 

 System has been beneficial to the water user? 



XXIII. Do you believe the theory of the Re- 

 volving Fund should be abandoned? If so, why? 



XXIV. Do you believe that if all these ques- 

 tions were answered satisfactorily to the farmer and 

 water user, it would remedy the unrest, the dissatis- 

 faction that now exists in this and in other projects; 

 and if not, why? 



XXV. Should the board be convinced that mis- 

 takes have been made, should the water user, or 

 the Government, stand the loss? 



XXVI. Should the board find that any or all 

 of these interrogatories are impertinent and should 

 not be answered, kindly state the reason why. 



The Montrose (Colo.) Enterprise 

 _ protests vigorously against condi- 



_ . tions on the Uncompaherre project in 



the earners _ , 



to Settlement Lo ' orado - wnlch hamper the settle- 

 of Proiects ment f ' tS unoccu pi ed lands. Simi- 

 lar conditions prevail in other Fed- 

 eral projects and should be eliminated. 



"If we had built a thirty-foot board fence 

 around this project and studiously planned measures 

 to keep the man with his plow off of this unde- 



veloped land we could not have devised so effective 

 a method for keeping this man out as has been de- 

 veloped with no particular thought of this kind in 

 mind,'' says the Enterprise. 



"Let the government throw open to entry the 

 land which is now under water and still owned by 

 the government and it would be taken up imme- 

 diately. 



"Then let those who are holding patented land 

 as investments come down from their high horses 

 and set a price on the land that is somewhere reason- 

 able. 



"No man in his right mind is going to pay a 

 hundred dollars an acre for raw land, assume the 

 obligation of the water subscription and on top of 

 that devote five years of hard work in bringing the 

 land up- to a respectable state of cultivation. 



"Make this undeveloped land reasonably easy 

 to acquire and we will have no trouble in getting it 

 settled up, but as long as the conditions are as im- 

 possible as they are at present these lands will never 

 be developed." 



A suit, in which Judge Thomas C. 

 What Wilson, of Wichita, Kans., must 



Is the render a decision presents an inter- 



Value of esting object lesson in the value of 



Irrigation? irrigation. 



The case primarily is over the 

 payment of rent on a 10-acre tract north of Wichita. 

 The interesting side issue is this : If a 10-acre tract 

 produces crops worth $213 with rainfall, how much 

 will it yield with irrigation? 



Charles Smith says irrigation will increase the 

 production of land around Wichita from five to five 

 hundred times. Conservatively, though, he says 

 one acre of irrigated ground will yield as much 

 as ten that are watered only by the rain. Mr. Smith 

 gave this testimony in defense of J. T. Graham's suit 

 to collect $230 rental on the ten acres. 



According to contract of lease Graham was to 

 install an irrigation plant on the 10-acre tract for 

 the 1914 season. Smith agreed to pay $300 a year 

 rental, under those conditions. When the pump was 

 not installed Smith refused to pay $230 of the rent, 

 claiming the land had produced only $213 when it 

 would have yielded between $2,500 and $3,500 had 

 it been irrigated according to contract. 



Honesty that's merely a policy is mighty poor 

 policy to follow. It should be practiced for its own 

 worth rather than as a preventive. 



Now is a good time to take a day off for a trip 

 to the lake, river, or some large park. We all work 

 better for an occasional change. 



