THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



55 



scale were it not for irrigation. To 

 that extent we will agree. 



I take it that we will agree also that 

 in the beginning the private irriga- 

 tionists, such as those who would di- 

 vert small ditches from the streams 

 and narrow ravines, where there was 

 an abundance of water so far as the 

 land which they were then trying to 

 farm was concerned were a success. 

 After a limited time it became neces- 

 sary for the farmers to organize into 

 mutual companies and those to a large 

 extent were a success. But that suc- 

 cess extended only up to the limit of 

 the water which could be diverted 

 without large expense and without 

 making it necessary to provide for 

 water storage. 



Then corporate enterprises under- 

 took the problem, developing natu- 

 rally in due course of time into irriga- 

 tion districts, one step farther in the 

 direction of reclaiming lands which 

 the private ditches and the mutual 

 companies could not reach. 



A number of these enterprises in 

 the form of irrigation districts in 

 places in California, and other places 

 where they were favored by nature, 

 by the water supply, and the amount 

 of diversion, proved successful, but 

 they soon reached their limit, and as 

 an evidence of the fact that they 

 reached their limit, and as a further 

 evidence of the fact that the country 

 had reached the point where private 

 enterprises and corporate enterprises 

 could not longer reclaim the public 

 lands successfully, the irrigation con- 

 gress was born. That in itself affords 

 strong evidence of the fact that even 

 the corporations and irrigation dis- 

 tricts were not able to cope with the 

 conditions with which they were con- 

 fronted. This made it necessary in 

 the early stages and early history of 

 this problem that the people should 

 gather together, as you are here, to 

 devise some way by which they could 

 secure governmental relief. 



It is evident, therefore, that from 

 every state from which delegates 

 were sent (eventually resulting in the 

 securing of the passage of the Recla- 

 mation act in 1902), it was deemed 

 by the most representative citizens 

 of those states that the time had ar- 

 rived when governmental assistance 

 was necessary. 



It was remarked by someone here 

 today, "Why is it that we do not have 

 so large an attendance now as we had 

 in 1904, when we attended the con- 

 gress here?" The reason is very 

 easily explained. At that time and 

 prior to 1902 the projects had not 

 been completed; they were only in 

 process of construction or in contem- 

 plation, and consequently every state 

 was interested there was a lively in- 

 terest in every project. Every one 

 of the 26 projects now constructed or 

 under process of construction had 

 their delegates here. But now we 

 have reached the time when most of 

 these projects are well on the way to 

 completion, and as a rule the people 

 under those projects deem it unneces- 

 sary for their representatives to come, 

 as they did before, and those who are 

 coming now are principally those who 

 look forward to the building of other 



and additional projects. I think, 

 therefore, ladies and gentlemen, that 

 these circumstances which I have enu- 

 merated in themselves strongly tend 

 to demonstrate that reclamation can 

 be undertaken more advantageously 

 by government activity than by pri- 

 vate and corporate enterprises. It is 

 not conclusive evidence, I will admit, 

 but it is certainly strong circumstan- 

 tial evidence. 



Now, it will probably be contended 

 that the projects constructed by our 

 government have required enormous 

 expenditures of money. But in that 

 connection let it be remembered that 

 the most feasible and cheapest proj- 

 ects had already been undertaken or 

 built. The farmer could go above his 

 farm half a mile or a mile and divert 

 the water on to his farm with but little 

 cost, nor did he even count his own 

 labor as a part of the expense. 



The farmers' corporation, such as 

 the Nevada Ditch Company, in the 

 county in which I live (Malheur coun- 

 ty, Ore.), and in which several hun- 

 dred people are interested, did all its 

 own work, hence did not count that 

 as a part of the expense. What is 

 more, up to the time that the Rec- 

 lamation Service became very act- 

 ive, labor was cheaper, there were no 

 eight-hour law regulations, materials 

 were cheaper, and the works could 

 accordingly be constructed with much 

 less expense than they can now or 

 since the government has entered in- 

 to the building of irrigation projects. 



In this conection I want to make the 

 assertoin and I think I am safe in mak- 

 ing it that if you investigate the proj- 

 ects in the United States constructed 

 under private corporate systems within 

 the last 20 years you will find that not 

 more than 10 per cent of them have 

 been successful. But when you come 

 to the government projects, about 26 

 in number, more than 90 per cent of 

 them have been successful. When I 

 say 90 per cent, I speak of them in 

 numbers; but if you consider the acre- 

 age irrigated and storage capacity of 

 the reservoirs, I feel safe in saying 

 that 98 per cent of them have been 

 successful. 



Take, for example, the Hondo proj- 

 ect we will concede that was a fail- 

 ure; that the bottom fell out of the 

 reservoir; that is, the water disap- 

 peared, probably to supply artesian 

 wells elsewhere. But that was some- 

 thing we could not foresee. 



The only other failure is the Gar- 

 den City project, over in Kansas. It 

 is a small project. The failure was 

 due to the fact that copious rains hap- 

 pened there for three or four years, 

 and the farmers concluded that they 

 did not need the project and would 

 not use or pay for the works. 



When you take the acreage re- 

 claimed under these various projects 

 and available acreage supply of the 

 reservoirs built, I feel safe in assert- 

 ing that 98 per cent of the govern- 

 ment projects have been a success and 

 that no more than 10 per cent of the 

 corporate private enterprises have 

 been a success. There is other evi- 

 dence of that fact, but before coming 

 to that point I will cite a few in- 

 stances: 



Go over in the Grand Valley in 

 Colorado and you will find the Or- 

 chard Mesa project, constructed by 

 private capital. It cost in the neigh- 

 borhood of $120 per acre. They are 

 paying 6 per cent interest upon more 

 than a million dollars in bonds. The 

 bonds, in the first instance, had to be 

 sold at such discount that the project 

 perhaps did not receive a million dol- 

 lars, and yet the bonded indebtedness 

 is over a million dollars. The flumes, 

 etc., are giving way, and much of the 

 works must now be replaced, and the 

 people interested are now willing to 

 turn the project over to the govern- 

 ment at a great loss. Just what they 

 would do in that regard or how far 

 they would go I do not know, but I 

 do know the bondholders would be 

 willing to turn it over to the govern- 

 ment at a great sacrifice if the 

 government would take it, and the 

 farmers there are praying to the Rec- 

 lamation Service to come to their res- 

 cue. 



We have applications from bond- 

 holders of various projects offering to 

 knock off hundreds of thousands of 

 dollars if the government will take 

 over the projects and run them. 



Again, the government works are 

 nearly always more substantially con- 

 structed. They never wash out, while 

 dams built by private corporations 

 frequently do. Take, for example, a 

 project in one state, which it is not 

 necessary to name, in which a dam 

 nearly a mile in length and 130 feet 

 in height was built by merely dump- 

 ing dirt off a railroad trestle. The 

 engineers in the employ of the project 

 deemed it sound, but it soon gave 

 way and proved to be a failure, after 

 an expenditure of hundreds of thou- 

 sands of dollars, leaving the farmers 

 in a deplorable condition. That af- 

 fords an illustration of the character 

 of work frequently done upon the 

 projects constructed with private capi- 

 tal. But we have no instance where 

 government works have given way. 

 And why? It is because of the better 

 workmanship and more careful man- 

 agement and the greater care with 

 which the engineers in the employ of 

 the United States have guarded 

 against any accidents of that kind. 



The reason for it is this, that the 

 government engineers have no mone- 

 tary interests at stake in the project. 

 They have at stake their reputations 

 as engineers. They have no bosses 

 ordering them to close up the work 

 this year or that, in order to turn 

 same over and thereby receive the 

 early and much coveted profits. They 

 have sufficient time in which to build 

 the projects and to build, them prop- 

 erly. They make sure that the proj- 

 ects will be permanent and will last 

 forever. But the builders of private 

 projects are so anxious to reduce the 

 expenses to the minimum and receive 

 as early as possible the maximum 

 price per acre for the land, in order 

 to acquire immense and quick profits, 

 that the tendency is to force their en- 

 gineers to slight the work, close up 

 the project and turn it over to the set- 

 tlers as quickly as possible, and leave 

 the farmers under it to proceed as 

 best they can. As a result, we read 



