1168 
he must then cultivate an additional one- 
sixteenth the second year, and the third 
year final proof must be made showing 
one-eighth of the land under cultivation. 
This is the maxunum time allowed the 
settlers. He may, as already stated, do 
all his cultivating and complete his proofs 
in about thirty days. 
The Carey act, under which these lands 
are entered, should not be confounded 
with the United States reclamation act 
or with the homestead laws. Under the 
reclamation act the settler is required to 
conform to the homestead laws of the 
United States; to pay the cost of his 
water right, and to actually reside upon 
the land for five (5) years. None of these 
requirements apply to Carey-act lands. 
The homestead commutation clause does 
not apply to lands taken under the recla- 
mation act. 
Under the Carey act the settler pays 
the state 50 cents per acre for the land 
in two equal instalments, contracts with 
the irrigation company for a water right 
for the land at the price per acre fixed by 
the State Land Board, and after residing 
upon the land for about thirty days, and 
putting one-eighth of it in cultivation and 
under irrigation, may make final proof 
and entitle himself to receive his patent 
for the same. 
After the irrigation system is com- 
pleted and approved by the state authori- 
ties, it is turned over to the settlers for 
operation. They thereafter own and op- 
erate it for their own benefit and are thus 
relieved of paying any profit on operation 
to anyone. This is accomplished by the 
organization of a settlers’ operating com- 
pany, the shares of which are transferred 
to the settlers on a basis of one share 
for each acre. This stock is issued to the 
settlers at the time they make their en- 
tries and execute their water contracts, 
no additional charge therefor being 
made. 
After final proof the settler can mort- 
gage the land and water right, subject to 
the lien for deferred payments on his 
water right. This is a great advantage 
to the settler of moderate means, as he 
can thus obtain any additional money 
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PRACTICAL HORTICULTURE 
which he may require to cultivate his 
land, make improvements, buy machinery, 
etc, and thus he avoids the disadvan- 
tages of the long period of residence re- 
quired under the reclamation act, during 
which time he has no title to the land, 
and no right to mortgage it to secure 
money for making improvements. 
RECLAMATION BY THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT 
Reclamation Act 
The reclamation act was made a law 
by the signature of President Roosevelt 
on June 17, 1902. 
This act provides that all moneys re- 
ceived from the sale and disposal of pub- 
lic lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ore- 
gon, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Wash- 
ington and Wyoming, beginning with the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, includ- 
ing the surplus of fees and commissions 
in excess of allowances to registers and 
receivers, and excepting 5 per cent of 
these amounts, which is set aside for 
educational and other purposes, shall be 
set aside and appropriated as a special 
fund in the treasury of the United States, 
to be known as the “reclamation fund,” 
to be used in the examination and survey 
for, and the construction and mainte- 
nance of, irrigation works for the stor- 
age, diversion and development of waters 
for the reclamation of arid and semi-arid 
lands in the said states and territories. 
The lands so reclaimed are subject to 
homestead entry, and there is absolutely 
no charge for the land itself, but the 
settler must pay to the United States, in 
not more than ten annual instalments, 
without interest, his proportion accord- 
ing to the number of acres he owns, of 
the amount expended by the United States 
in reclaiming his land. The collection 
of operation and maintenance charges is 
not definitely provided for in the recla- 
mation act; however, the authority of 
the Secretary of the Interior to collect 
such charges has been upheld by the de- 
cision rendered in the Baker-Swigart 
suit, which was in effect a test case on 
this point. 
