56 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



time and again of their dams giving 

 way, and of the farmers under them 

 being financially ruined. 



Now, a further evidence of the fact 

 that the government projects are 

 more efficient and more to be desired 

 and more practical is that we find, 

 as in the North Platte, the Boise Val- 

 ley, the State of Washington, and in 

 practically all of the projects where 

 we have a surplus storage water sup- 

 ply, that the managers of even the 

 best canals those that are prior in 

 time and prior in right and which 

 were constructed in early days, and 

 which had, as was supposed, an abun- 

 dant water supply are making appli- 

 cation to the government for the 

 surplus, for a supplemental water sup- 

 ply from the government. They dis- 

 cover that when their neighbors un- 

 der the government projects plant 

 their crops and grow four crops of 

 alfalfa, while on private projects but 

 from one to three crops are grown, 

 there is a reason for it, and that is 

 that those under the government 

 works have water throughout the sea- 

 son, while the private ditches with- 

 out storage water can have the water 

 only so long as it flows in the river, 

 which flow usually ceases early in the 

 irrigation season. They thought 

 nothing of that until after the gov- 

 ernment projects were constructed or 

 until they had an opportunity to see 

 the difference demonstrated, when 

 they soon learned that it would be 

 better to have an interest in the gov- 

 ernment water supply to supplement 

 the limited supply at their command. 



The result is that in the vicinity of 

 North Yakima we have sold a large 

 amount of water as a supplemental 

 water supply. Likewise we have sold 

 a large amount in the North Platte, 

 where they have one of the best pri- 

 vate irrigation systems in the United 

 States. And we are today preparing 

 to sell water to several large canals 

 in the Boise Valley, where they once 

 assumed they had an abundance of 

 water, having in fact one of the fine 

 private systems of the West. 



That is evidence, I think, ladies 

 and gentlemen, of the fact that the 

 government projects are more effi- 

 cient, more effective, and more prac- 

 tical, and why is it? It is for the 

 reason that the government so con- 

 structs its reservoirs as to provide a 

 surplus of water to meet the demands 

 of dry seasons. 



I know of no instance where a pri- 

 vate or corporate project ever pro- 

 vided for a storage supply on any 

 large scale. In some instances, here 

 and there, small reservoirs holding a 

 few thousand acre-feet of water have 

 been built. But compare these with 

 the government structures the Roose- 

 velt Dam, with its 1,300,000 acre-feet, 

 which is sufficient water to cover 

 1,300,000 acres one foot deep; the Ar- 

 rowrock Dam, with 250,000 acre-feet; 

 the Pathfinder Dam, with 1,000,000 

 acre-feet; the Shoshone Dam, with 

 465,000 acre-feet; the Jackson Lake 

 Dam, with 900,000 acre-feet; and the 

 Elephant Butte Dam, with 2,500,000 

 acre-feet. The Elephant Butte is the 

 largest storage reservoir for irriga- 



tion purposes in the whole world, not 

 excepting those in Egypt. 



It is only necessary to call atten- 

 tion to this condition to convince 

 anyone, as I take it, that corporate 

 enterprises and irrigation districts, if 

 conducted independent of the govern- 

 ment, would never have been able to 

 produce the capital with which to 

 construct these immense reservoirs. 



It is the water supply then to which 

 I want to call your attention, as one 

 of the great advantages which the 

 government affords to the farms of 

 the West. It is not so much a ques- 

 tion of the ability of the canals to di- 

 vert the water, as was the case before 

 the government entered into these en- 

 terprises, as it is the matter of the 

 storage of the water, to tide the peo- 

 ple over the dry seasons. 



Take, for instance, the Pathfinder 

 Dam. The water is stored there in 

 such abundance as to meet all re- 

 quirements of irrigation for at least 

 one or two seasons in case of a 

 drouth. Not every year will the feed- 

 ing streams fill that reservoir, or 

 the Roosevelt Reservoir, but each is 

 made large enough so that if any dry 

 season comes, and a sufficient water 

 supply is not available in the stream, 

 the project will have on hand a sur- 

 plus left over from former years to 

 provide for the irrigation of the land. 

 It needs only to be mentioned, that 

 you may see that private enterprises 

 could never have undertaken this, or 

 at least, would never have done so. 



There is another reason. Those 

 who avail themselves of the benefits 

 of the government reclamation work 

 have to pay no interest on the invest- 

 ment and should not, while in all in- 

 stances within my knowledge, under 

 irrigation systems, where projects are 

 operated independently of the gov- 

 ernment and private capital is used, 

 6 per cent per annum is paid upon 

 the investment. 



Before going farther into that I 

 will say that I have had a careful 

 computation made of 15 of the larg- 

 est projects of the Reclamation Serv- 

 ice and 15 of the largest projects in 

 the United States built by private 

 capital and I find that the average 

 cost for the government projects has 

 been $47 per acre, while the average 

 cost of the private and corporate en- 

 terprises has been $65 per acre. On 

 this $47 per acre the farmer has to 

 pay no interest; on the $65 per acre 

 he pays 6 per cent annually. 



But for the sake of the argument 

 let us suppose that each pays the same; 

 let us assume that the government 

 project costs the same per acre as 

 the private project. But before mak- 

 ing the comparison let us keep in 

 mind that the best way to understand 

 this proposition is to take into con- 

 sideration that the one paying the $47 

 per acre at the end of 20 years has 

 paid only $47 for each acre ; but the one 

 who pays $65 per acre when you com- 

 pute the interest not compound interest 

 but straight interest you will find that 

 he has paid more than $125 per acre, 

 or about $70 more than the one whose 

 lands were irrigated by a project built 

 at the same price per acre under the 



government plan. But assume, for 

 the sake of the argument, that it cost 

 the same, $65. You have the farmer 

 paying $65 per acre, plus that much 

 more for the private or corporate 

 project than you must pay under the 

 government project and yet they 

 started off even. 



We hear a great deal of complaint 

 about the farmers not being able to 

 pay (or have heard it in the past, but 

 they are getting over it lately since 

 they began to raise immense crops; 

 about the farmers not being able to 

 pay the price per acre which the gov- 

 ernment charges, as if it were an un- 

 fair obligation. The burden of the 

 song of those who have the land to 

 sell is that it would be better to have 

 the land under the private enterprise 

 or the corporate enterprise, notwith- 

 standing it would mean a construc- 

 tion charge of $65, plus more than an 

 equal amount in interest in 20 years, 

 under any system constructed by pri- 

 vate capital that you can figure out. 



I have had this computed, figuring 

 straight interest upon $47, and if you 

 will take what the farmer saves upon 

 that interest by not having to pay 

 it, you will find that at the end of 20 

 years he has saved about $30 per acre 

 interest upon the investment, leaving 

 it to cost him $17 per acre in place 

 of $47, when measured from the 

 straight interest standpoint. But if 

 you want to go further and compute 

 it upon the compound-interest plan, 

 if the farmer will loan out what he 

 saves each year if he will turn it 

 over to the banker to be handled by 

 legitimate banking methods, you will 

 find that at the end of 20 years he will 

 have his water right paid for and will 

 have between $50 and $60 per acre in 

 the bank. 



That may sound strange, but if you 

 have any doubt about it, figure it up; 

 if you can not figure it up, get your 

 banker to figure it for you; you will 

 see the result is about as I have stated 

 it. 



I am reminded of the sign of a real 

 estate agent over in Utah or some 

 other state; I am not certain about 

 the state. He was running a post- 

 office and a store, and a blacksmith 

 shop, and a shoe shop, and various 

 other things. He was an up-to-date 

 man. His specialty, however, was the 

 real-estate business. (Laughter.) In 

 the exercise of his good business 

 judgment he had put up a sign on 

 his postoffice and store, which read: 

 Here is the place to come to buy 

 your land. The government builds 

 the project, puts the water on your 

 land, and charges you 5 per cent in- 

 terest for 20 years, and then gives 

 you the principal. 

 (Laughter and applause.) 

 And that is exactly what it is, any 

 way you want to figure it. If you pay 

 5 per cent per annum for 20 years you 

 will have paid the principal; or you 

 pay 5 per cent interest for 20 years 

 and are given the principal. 



Think what the result would have 

 been when the government first 

 started out on this venture, when it 

 first entered upon the reclamation of 

 arid lands, if its officials had said. "If 



