90 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



SALEM CONFERENCE ON IRRIGATION, CREDITS, 



DRAINAGE 



A conference on irrigation, drainage and rural 

 credits was held at Salem, March 9 and 10. Every 

 session was a lively one, and the results were not 

 altogether expected, although they might have been 

 foreseen. 



In brief, the conference was called for the pur- 

 pose of considering state rural credits, state aid for 

 irrigation and drainage projects and to try and har- 

 monize them. It was not successful in harmonizing 

 by any means, although some good always results 

 indirectly from men meeting and telling each other 

 what they think. 



Governor Withycombe, in an address before 

 the conference, suggested the use of the state school 

 funds for a rural credit system. He said that Ore- 

 gon today had a serviceable rural credit plan in 

 operation one highly satisfactory to all parties. 

 The state has more than $6,000,000 in gilt-edge mort- 

 gages now, and the governor suggested the possi- 

 bility of using these mortgages as a basis for se- 

 curing more credit. New loans could be issued of 

 the face value of the present ones, using the old 

 ones as collateral. With a state guarantee it would 

 mean $6,000,000 more available for rural credits. 

 He promised support for a conservative, workable 

 and safe system of rural credits. 



He stated that he would oppose a large bond 

 issue for irrigation and drainage projects, while rec- 

 ognizing the importance of both. He confessed 

 doubt as to the advisability of direct state aid to 

 irrigation and drainage plans. 



Senator W. Lair Thompson of Lake county and 

 State Treasurer Kay clashed early in the confer- 

 ence. Mr. Thompson criticized published statements 

 of Mr. Kay, maintaining that his plan would be 

 one which would protect the state and still give 

 property owners a chance to develop. He believed 

 a plan could be prepared whereby assistance for 

 irrigation could be secured only after the settlers 

 declared their wish for it and were willing to put up 

 their homes as security for their share of the cost. 

 Such a plan, he believed, would cut out the pro- 

 moter, safeguard the state and permit the settlers 

 to prosper. 



Mr. Kay declared that there was no demand 

 for reclaimed land and that the state should spend 

 no more money in further projects, citing the Tum- 

 alo and other projects where demand has been very 

 small. 



Senator Thompson retorted that these were 

 public projects, organized before there were any 

 settlers. He wanted help only for actual settlers. 



W. M. Colyig, representing the Southern Pa- 

 cific, spoke against state aid for irrigation and drain- 

 age projects. 



It was finally decided, after a prolonged dis- 

 cussion, to have two committees, each with a mem- 

 bership of three, to take the necessary steps and per- 

 fect the necessary organization to secure the plac- 

 ing of the irrigation and drainage amendment and 



the rural credits amendment to the state constitu- 

 tion by the ballot and to work for their passage. 

 It is provided that the committees shall work with 

 the attorney general and so far as possible, with 

 each other. 



DRAINAGE IS A "SPECIAL" BENEFIT 



The Supreme Court of Nebraska has just ren- 

 dered an important decision affecting the rights of 

 water-users. 



Plaintiff in this case was the owner of about 

 300 acres within the limits of the drainage dis- 

 trict. In the construction of a drainage ditch it 

 became necessary to run the main channel and a 

 lateral ditch through his land. The required land 

 was condemned and plaintiff was awarded $1,151.96. 

 Plaintiff appealed. 



The principal points involved were with re- 

 spect to the right to recover for consequential dam- 

 ages to that part of plaintiff's land which was not 

 taken for the ditch, and as to the difference between 

 "special" and "general" benefits. Plaintiff contended 

 that the incidental benefits accruing to his land from 

 the presence of the drainage ditch were "general" 

 benefits, and could not be set off against and held to 

 cancel the actual damage done to his land. 



The court held that the benefits received by 

 plaintiff from the ditch draining the land of surplus 

 water, preventing overflows, and permitting crops 

 to grow where it was impracticable before, were 

 "special" benefits, even though they were also en- 

 joyed by other landowners along the line of the 

 ditch. "General" benefits were said to be increased 

 healthfulness and salubrity of the surroundings, abil- 

 ity to use the public roads at a time when if un- 

 drained they would be impassable, the removal of 

 swamps or low and wet places, fit breeding ground 

 for malaria, etc., and in the general desirability of 

 the vicinity as an abiding place. Such "general" 

 benefits, of course, would not be subject to set off. 



However, as stated, the court held that the ben- 

 efits accruing to plaintiff's lands were of a more 

 "special" character and could be set off against con- 

 sequential damages, the court holding that 



Where the land has been benefited by the con- 

 struction of the ditch to an amount in excess of its 

 assessment for the cost of construction, these excess 

 benefits may be set off against consequential dam- 

 ages, and since the market value of his land was 

 increased by the enterprise more than the conse- 

 quential damages sustained plaintiff suffered no 

 pecuniary loss for which damages can be recovered. 



SEND $1.00 FOR THE IRRIGATION AGE 

 ONE YEAR AND THE PRIMER OF 

 IRRIGATION. 



