THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



75 



distinction is therefore apparent. It 

 is, of course, true that the govern- 

 ment receives a benefit from irriga- 

 tion projects; that in reclaiming the 

 arid lands of the West it is building 

 up a population in cities and towns 

 and homes which, as time goes on, 

 will be able to repel an invasion from 

 a possible enemy if such a calamity 

 should ever happen. To that extent, 

 together with the increase in the 

 financial resources of the nation, the 

 increase of taxable property of its 

 states, and the providing of homes 

 for overcrowded sections, the govern- 

 ment does receive a general benefit 

 and to that extent the government is 

 interested, but the immediate benefit 

 is to the individual. And Uncle Sam 

 is meeting you half way; he is fur- 

 nishing this reclamation money to 

 you without interest; he is building 

 the project for you as individuals, not 

 for the use of the whole world or any 

 great part of it, and in that way he 

 guarantees the success of the project; 

 and you as individuals receive the 

 immediate exclusive benefit of it. 

 Such conditions do not prevail in the 

 case of rivers and harbors. The er- 

 ror in comparison is therefore mani- 

 fest. 



While Judge Graves is willing for 

 the government to use its money and 

 build these reservoirs, and tender 

 them to the settlers free of charge, 

 his general policy, and that in which 

 he believes the more, is to let the 

 corporations build them, although, as 

 I endeavored to demonstrate to you 

 a while ago, those furnishing the pri- 

 vate capital usually make half of the 

 profit themselves. Our good friend, 

 the judge, is perfectly willing to let 

 private capital build the projects and 

 assess upon the water users 6 per 

 cent interest for 20 years, or $130 per 

 acre for a $65 water right. That is 

 his choice; that is the policy which 

 he tells you he stands for; that is the 

 policy his side of this debate is advo- 

 cating. I am not saying that he ad- 

 mits my conclusion, but that is the 

 logical effect of his position. He 

 would not seriously object if the gov- 

 ernment were to make you a present 

 of the works, but he would prefer, as 

 I take it, that the government would 

 not do so, but that the corporations 

 build them and charge you interest 

 and profit along the lines and in the 

 manner mentioned. That plan will 

 seldom succeed. We do not stand for 

 it, and as time and experience go on 

 it will soon be said, "We never will." 

 [Applause.] 



I learned this evening that I am to 

 be placed upon the program for a 

 20-minute talk tomorrow afternoon to 

 tell you how I think the government 

 should venture into reclamation work 

 so as to include both arid and swamp 

 lands in the field of its efforts, and 

 in place of reclaiming less than two 

 million and a half acres, as has thus 

 far been done, we will reclaim one 

 hundred million acres. [Applause.] 

 This reclamation, if accomplished, 

 would, in itself, make a great com- 

 monwealth, a state as large as Mon- 

 tana, Rhode Island, Delaware, and 

 Connecticut combined. We have 

 something like 75,000,000 acres of 

 swamp land, besides more than 25,- 



000,000 acres of unreclaimed desert, 

 and it would require an investment 

 in the neighborhood of a billion dol- 

 lars, if not more, to accomplish the 

 work. This proposition is not di- 

 rectly germane to the question in 

 hand, but I pause to observe that if 

 the government can not do this great 

 work, it is practically certain that pri- 

 vate enterprise can not. But there is 

 a way by which the government can 

 do it, and do it easily, of which I 

 shall speak tomorrow. It is not prop- 

 erly a part of this debate. 



We are told by Judge Graves that 

 he has no objection to building these 

 great reservoirs for reclamation of the 

 lands, such as I enumerated, but he 

 objects to Uncle Sam invading the 

 province of private enterprise. Now, 

 that includes an assumption to the 

 effect that we are depriving private 

 enterprise of the right to ,build proj- 

 ects. This is an erroneous assump- 

 tion. As I have stated, there is no 

 objection to private enterprise going 

 ahead, but at the same time the gov- 

 ernment should also go ahead and 

 build these great projects. Neither 

 need necessarily wait for the other. 

 Uncle Sam has no objection to pri- 

 vate enterprise proceeding whenever 

 and wherever desired. If the people 

 want to bear the burdens and act in- 

 dependently, Uncle Sam, in his good- 

 ness of heart, always stands ready 

 and willing to look on in silent con- 

 tentment. 



My opponent's verbal painting of 

 the picture of the light of private en- 

 terprise shining from the hilltops of 

 individual effort is inspiring. The 

 thought is beautifully expressed, but 

 we must remember that it is a condi- 

 tion and not a theory with which we 

 are confronted. Anyone can stand 

 and look with awe upon a picture, but 

 let the same person sit for the pic- 

 ture and perform the acts repre- 

 sented, let him be not the picture, but 

 the actual performer, as in this case 

 the farmer; or if it be a battle, let 

 him be one of the soldiers; let him 

 experience the blunt reality instead 

 of gazing upon an idealistic presen- 

 tation; then the romance and allure- 

 ment will vanish, and the cold, logical 

 facts will prove to be the real and 

 effective instructor. [Applause.] 



As I said in the outset, when it is 

 conceded that practically all the avail- 

 able streams subject to use and diver- 

 sion and successful operation by in- 

 dividuals and small bodies of farm- 

 e'rs have long ago been taken up, and 

 when it is not disputed that corpor- 

 ate enterprises have about reached 

 their limit, then to concede, as Judge 

 Graves has, that perhaps the govern- 

 ment should go ahead and build these 

 great reservoirs and dams (and guar- 

 antee part of the principal and all in- 

 terest on district bonds) is pretty 

 nearly conceding away his case. For 

 this resolution, to the effect that the 

 government can more efficiently and 

 more successfully reclaim the arid 

 and swamp lands, refers to the fu- 

 ture, and not to the past. It is not 

 questioned but that investors of pri- 

 vate capital along these lines have 

 about reached their limit; they can 

 only handle reclamation on a small 

 scale and outside the building of these 



large reservoirs such as have been 

 mentioned. 



Judge Graves tells us of the glowing 

 success of the farmers prior to Uncle 

 Sam's entrance into reclamation work 

 in Arizona; that they had 100,000 

 acres under irrigation in Maricopa 

 county in that state (yes, "Maricopa," 

 that beautiful sounding name), before 

 the government took hold of the 

 project. I do not know the exact 

 acreage, but I suppose that is true. 

 But we have now nearly 200,000 acres, 

 or at least water enough for approxi- 

 mately that amount. And, as stated 

 before, the taxable property during 

 a period of 13 years has increased 

 from $9,000,000 in 1903 to $75,000,000 

 at the present time. If the private 

 enterprises he mentioned were suc- 

 cessful, or more successful than the 

 government enterprise, why is it that 

 in all the history of that county, cov- 

 ering a period of more than a quarter 

 of a century yes, I might say a pe- 

 riod of 300 years (we might at least 

 go back to the time when "the stars 

 fell") the county only reached an 

 assessed valuation of about $9,000, 

 000? Yes, why? Let echo answer, 

 Why? The gentleman who has just 

 spoken has not answered why, where, 

 nor from whence comes this change. 



There is a further fallacy in his able 

 argument, when measured from the 

 angle from which he views it. He 

 puts the matter on an acreage basis, 

 without taking into consideration the 

 character of the irrigation, the source 

 of the water supply, the efficiency of 

 the irrigation, or the productiveness 

 of the lands under the system. Sup- 

 pose, for example, the water users 

 could raise the three crops of alfalfa 

 oh the hundred thousand acres which 

 the judge has so glowingly pictured 

 from the hilltops as being irrigated 

 before Uncle Sam with his big shoes 

 began to tread upon the poor farmers 

 in that section. Did it prove more 

 successful than the raising of six 

 crops under the present system? Or, 

 if that early system were sufficient, 

 can anyone explain why every citi- 

 zen in that county was anxious to 

 have the benefit of a government wa- 

 ter right or why they still want to 

 build more projects, the Verde, for 

 example under the eye of our al- 

 ways good-natured and beneficent 

 Uncle Sam? [Applause.] 



I can and will tell you one reason. 

 Beside the millions spent in building 

 the Roosevelt Dam of which the 

 civilized world is and always should 

 be proud it took more than $500,000 

 to put a diversion dam in the river 

 (where unexpected floods had washed 

 out the dam built by the farmers) 

 that would guarantee the delivery of 

 the water, which dam, under private 

 management, had not been properly 

 built and could not be replaced with 

 private capital. Private capital could 

 not do it under the conditions then 

 existing. After the construction of 

 the Rosevelt Dam was begun, this 

 immense diversion dam of the farm- 

 ers went out. They could not meet 

 the emergency. But our good old 

 Uncle, always ready to be a friend to 

 his people, could dp it and did do it; 

 and those good citizens who had the 

 100,000-acre water right, as they as- 



