THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



57 



you will pay us 5 per cent for 20 years 

 we will give you the principal." Why, 

 even our good friend, Judge Graves, 

 would have jumped at that chance, 

 and he would have taken up all the 

 arid land under government projects 

 that he could have found if he could 

 only have been assured that all he 

 would have to do would be to pay 5 

 per cent per annum and then be given 

 the principal at the end of 20 years. 

 (Laughter.) 



Well, that is one difference between 

 the two systems. 



But to say they cost the same is 

 not really a fair statement, when we 

 consider the permanency of the work, 

 which I have just discussed. When 

 we consider the care with which the 

 engineers of the Reclamation Service, 

 in order to insure their engineering 

 reputations, without hope of other 

 rewards, venture upon the building 

 of a project, and the permanency of 

 the work, and the abiding assurance 

 that when the dam is placed in the 

 stream it will remain there forever, 

 you will observe, if you will look into 

 it, that you get more than twice as 

 much for your money, even figured at 

 the same price, as you get under a 

 corporate or private enterprise. 



The tendency of the people who be- 

 lieve in the corporate irrigation plan 

 with private capital is to think that 

 just so long as you have a dam, that 

 is all you need. They reason some- 

 thing like this: 



A dam will hold water; 



A pile of earth is a dam; 



Therefore a pile of earth will hold 

 water. 



That is the way a great many peo- 

 ple reason on this subject; that is the 

 way the engineers figured it when 

 they built a dam a mile in length by 

 merely dumping dirt and debris from 

 a railroad trestle, making it 130 feet 

 high and about a mile in length, and 

 pronounced it safe. They had the 

 earth, hence the dam, but it wasn't in 

 fact a real dam, as subsequent expe- 

 rience proved to the great sorrow of 

 the farmers who paid the bills. 



Yet, in making estimates and in 

 comparing the two kinds of works, 

 the tendency is to say that the darri, 

 when it was placed in there, cost the 

 farmer, we will say, $65 per acre to 

 reclaim his land; while the Govern- 

 ment might place another dam in a 

 canyon somewhere and build a reser- 

 voir like some that we have at a cost 

 of $65 per acre and that dam will be 

 there when Gabriel blows his horn, 

 while the dam built with private capi- 

 tal will last but a few years. Yet, we 

 are asked to compare the two and say 

 that each costs the same per acre. As 

 a matter of practice, the private en- 

 terprise, under any system by which 

 you can figure it, will cost more than 

 twice as much per acre. 



Now ladies and gentlemen, I think 

 when we take into consideration the 

 difference in the manner of construc- 

 tion, when we take into consideration 

 the fact that no interest is to be paid 

 upon the investment, and that the 

 government has provided a revolving 

 fund that is, that the money invested 

 returns to the government and is used 



for the reclamation of other lands; 

 that the farmer does not have to pay 

 any profit on the investment, as he 

 does in the private enterprises it 

 would seem clear that the affirmative 

 of this resolution, to the effect that 

 reclamation can be undertaken more 

 advantageously and more econom- 

 ically by government activity than by 

 private enterprise, is amply demon- 

 strated; and this applies not alone to 

 desert and arid lands of the West but 

 with equal force to the reclamation 

 of swamp lands. 



The money invested in the private 

 enterprise does not came back, as a 

 revolving fund, to reach these differ- 

 ent lands; or when it does come back, 

 it comes with an immense profit, as 

 was shown by the investigation which 

 was held in Montana, I believe, which 

 brought to light the information that 

 the profits, where private capital built 

 the project, were about $40 per acre. 



Our Reclamation Service has du- 

 ties thrust upon it not found in any 

 other bureau. Other departments 

 spend the money and bid it "good- 

 by," while we must spend the money 

 and provide for its safe return. 

 (Laughter.) And it is well that we 

 must do so, for its safe arrival from 

 its starting point insures the build- 

 ing of more projects for which you 

 and I and all of us are hoping today. 

 (Applause.) 



I am familiar with two or three en- 

 terprises in my county in eastern 

 Oregon, projects which were built by 

 private capital, and which, by their 

 owners, are deemed successful. One 

 of them thus far has not been put in- 

 to operation, but there is sufficient 

 land under it, and temporarily, at 

 least, the dam appears to be a success. 

 There is another, which has a pump- 

 ing plant, and which pumps the wa- 

 ter out of Snake river, about 80 feet, 

 and which is a partial success. There 

 is another farther up the valley which 

 is also a partial success. But I was 

 surprised when I asked how much 

 per acre each of these projects was 

 charging for the water right to learn 

 that such charge runs from $100 to 

 $110 per acre. 



I .know that country well enough 

 (having lived there most of my life) 

 to know that it did not cost half the 

 amount named to build those proj- 

 ects; that is, it did not cost more than 

 half that amount to construct them, 

 but with the profits to be paid the 

 promoters it will cost the farmers that 

 amount. When the cost to the farm- 

 ers is figured, you must estimate it 

 from the standpoint of what the 

 farmer has to pay, and in these in- 

 stances I have mentioned the farmer 

 has to pay at least $50 per acre profit 

 to the prompters. 



The last time I was in eastern Ore- 

 gon a committee from one of these 

 projects met me and wanted to know 

 if there was not some way that they 

 could persuade the Reclamation Serv- 

 ice to take over this project. They 

 are tired of it already. 



Go over into the Snake River Val- 

 ley, on the south side of the Snake 

 river in Idaho, just across the line 

 from Oregon. We find there a pri- 



vate project which cost something 

 like $100 per acre, paying 6 per cent 

 interest, and yet we find they do not 

 have an available water supply, be- 

 cause they have not the power with 

 which to pump the water out of Snake 

 river. 



You can go to the King Hill proj- 

 ect, farther east in Idaho, which pri- 

 vate capital constructed at immense 

 cost. It is now in the hands of a re- 

 ceiver, and they have come to the 

 Reclamation Service urging us to as- 

 sist them in providing some way by 

 which the government can take up 

 this project and save the farmers who 

 are under it from ruin. Those who 

 built the project are, in fact, on the 

 verge of bankruptcy, if not already 

 there; at least, the project went into 

 the hands of a receiver, and the State 

 has finally had to come to the rescue 

 so as to permit the farmers tempo- 

 rarily to farm their lands. 



We might go on and cite many 

 other instances. You can go into an 

 examination of the Carey projects 

 I have a list of over 100 of them and 

 I think it safe to assert that not more 

 than 10 per cent, if that many, have 

 been successful. I know of only two 

 or three, and they are only partial suc- 

 cesses. With the exception of one, I 

 don't know of any of them that would 

 not welcome the Reclamation Serv- 

 ice in taking over their project. There 

 may be more. I only assert that I 

 have not heard of them. 



We are reaching a time in the his- 

 tory of these projects and in this work 

 when we must decide yes, the people 

 who elect the senators and congress- 

 men must decide whether those in- 

 terested in the 25,000,000 acres of arid 

 lands of the West and the 75,000,000 

 acres of swamp lands in the South, 

 East, West, and North are to depend 

 upon the government for further aid, 

 or whether rivers and harbors shall 

 be the only "pets" of Uncle Sam. The 

 good farmers of the country, who are 

 the builders of our homes and who 

 are the best insurance of the perma- 

 nency of this great Republic, should 

 be permitted to have their lands re- 

 claimed, with the assurance that the 

 money expended will be returned to 

 our great and good government in or- 

 der to build other good projects and 

 add thereto the permanency of an 

 inestimable number of happy homes. 



Since we have gone, I .might say, 300 

 years without accomplishing anything 

 further than the reclamation of small 

 strips of land along the streams until 

 the government came to the rescue, is 

 it not reasonable to assume that that 

 will continue if private capital must 

 be depended upon? When you take 

 into consideration that the taxable 

 value of property has more than 

 doubled in every county where there 

 is a government reclamation project. 

 is it not reasonable to assume that 

 the government reclamation work is 

 more feasible, more efficient, and 

 more practical than that done by pri- 

 vate enterprise? 



Take, for example, Maricopa coun- 

 ty, Ariz. In 1902 the taxable value 

 of the property there was about 

 $9,000,000; in 1915, after the construe- 



