38 BULLETIN 125":. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
in this direction is indicated by the census reports, which show that 
on the United States reclamation projects the degree to which the 
works are utilized is greater than on projects of any other kind 
except cooperative enterprises. 
The most recent proposals for governmental participation in re- 
clamation have proposed Government financing and construction, 
without a subsidy, which amounts to the loan of Federal credit for 
financing, plus Federal construction (see p. 23). The States, on the 
other hand, are tending toward the policy of lending their credit, 
without provision for State construction. It is believed that if there 
is a loan of public credit, it should be accompanied by either public- 
construction and expenditures or a very high degree of public super- 
vision of construction and expenditures, to insure that the fimds are 
expended properly. As between the two. public construction affords 
the greater security for proper expenditure. 
Proper expenditure alone will not insure against loss of the funds 
advanced for construction. Their return depends more largely upon 
prompt settlement and use of the land reclaimed, and the approval 
of any project should depend upon evidence that the land reclaimed 
will be put to use promptly. If there is to be no subsidy there must 
be prompt payment, and this can not be, if the land is not producing. 
The demand for Government reclamation undoubtedly is due 
partly to the fact that it involves the subsidy and the indefinite post- 
ponement of payments of construction cost. With the subsidy elimi- 
nated the demand would be less, except as the hope of leniency in en- 
forcing payment forecasts a subsidy that nominally does not exist. 
The advantages of Government reclamation work may be summed 
up as follows: 
It makes possible the selection of areas to be reclaimed, in accordance with 
an established policy of expansion of the agricultural area. 
It makes possible the obtaining of funds at low rates of interest, and thus 
decreases the cost of reclamation. 
It gives assurance as to the sufficiency of water supply, stability of reclama- 
tion works, and ability to carry out any contracts made. 
It assures leniency in collections in case of adversity, an advantage not 
unmixed with disadvantages. 
The principal disadvantages lie in the possibility of the perversion 
of the advantages just enumerated, as follows : 
The selection of areas to be reclaimed is likely to be governed by political 
considerations resulting from pressure by the local land-owning and business 
interests directly benefitted by expenditure of the funds 
The demand for Government expenditures for reclamation lias little relation 
to the real need for the land to be reclaimed. . 
The ease of obtaining funds is likely to lead to reclamation work when and 
where it is not needed. 
There are likely to be demands for leniency in collecting, when there is no 
valid reason for it. 
There is a tendency toward extravagant ov unnecessary expenditure, because 
of the lack of incentive for economy in construction as a moans of obtaining 
profits. 
Up to the present time the disadvantages have been much more in 
evidence than the advantages, i]\w in part, no doubt, to the subsidy 
feature of the present system. It is probable that the objectionable 
feature- would ; sed if the subsidy wore eliminated. 
The wisdom of adopting a Government scheme of reclamation de- 
void of subsidy for the future will depend very largely upon the 
