LAND RECLAMATION POLICIES IX THE I'XITED STATES 
9 
a 
The annual interest on the reported net investment plus previously 
accumulated interest for 1922. was about $7,725,000, or nearly twice 
the anticipated annual repayments on contruction charges. 5 "With 
interest charges far exceeding repayments, the excess of actual cost 
as expressed in corrected net investment over reported net investment 
will increase very rapidly. In 1922 accumulated excess caused by 
compounding interest on net investment was slightly more than 50 
per cent of the reported net investment. 
The net investment just considered is not the " cost " that is to be 
repaid under the terms of the law, as repayments already made have 
been taken into account. In Table 3 the ,; net cost " of the various 
projects, in which repayments of construction charges have not been 
deducted, is given, with the same interest charges that are given in 
Table 2. The sum of these two items for each project shows what 
water users would have to repay if they actually reimbursed the 
Government for its outlay. The last column in Table 3 shows by 
what percentage the reported cost would be increased by adding 
interest on net investment at -± per cent. 
Table 3. — Increase in net cost of United States reclamation pi-ojects caused oil 
charging interest on net investment. 
Project. 
Net cost. 
4 per cent 
interest on 
net invest- 
ment. 
Total.i 
Per cent 
increase 
on cost. 
Salt River 
Yuma... . 
$10, 548, 119 
8, 942, 1S3 
1, 057, 959 
3. 765. 199 
6, 667, 183 
12, 425, 781 
1, 471, 624 
6, 846, 240 
385, 651 
1. 467, 685 
$7. 308, 919 
4, 749, 469 
437, 899 
1, 102, 079 
4. 041, 944 
5, 820, 643 
122. 90S 
3, 108, 928 
273, 988 
869,309 
2, 212, 751 
1. 365, 630 
2. 280. 908 
4,96^. 788 
4. 371. 645 
672, 50S 
318, 485 
2. 103, 338 
605, 814 
1, 225, 291 
1, 677, 861 
2, 170, 424 
1, 571, 690 
516, 114 
4. 237, 645 
3. 112.895 
$17, 857. 03S 
13. 691, 652 
1, 495, 858 
4, 867, 268 
10. 709, 127 
18, 246, 424 
1. 594, 532 
9, 955, 163 
659. 639 
2. 336, 994 
8, 772, 647 
5, 403, 470 
5,847,314 
17.931,118 
11.063,060 
2. 069, 812 
690, 352 
13, 418, 687 
1,290,611 
4. 024. 176 
5, 218, 195 
5, 739, 114 
5. 044. 152 
1,914.172 
15. 243. 106 
10, 592, 752 
69.3 
53 1 
Orland. 
41 4 
Grand Valley ', . ... .' 
29.3 
Uncompahgre 
Boise .. . 
60.6 
46.8 
King Hill 
8.4 
45 4 
Garden City.. . . 
71 
Huntlev _ 
59.2 
Milk River 
St. Marv's storage. . . 
| 6, 559, S96 
33.7 
Snn River 
4, 037, 840 
3, 566, 406 
12. 962, 330 
6,691.415 
1, 397, 304 
371, 867 
11, 315, 349 
684, 797 
2. 798, 885 
3, 540, 334 
3, 568, 690 
3, 472, 462 
1, 398, 058 
11,005,461 
7, 479. 857 
33.8 
Lower Yellowstone 
North Platte . 
64.0 
38.3 
Xewlands. . . . .. . . 
65.3 
Carlsbad. 
48. 1 
Hondo.. ... . 
85.6 
18.6 
Xorth Dakota pumping 
88.5 
43.8 
Klamath . . . 
47.4 
Belle Fourche.. ..... .. ... . 
60.8 
45.3 
Okanogan 
Yakima . 
36.9 
38.5 
41.6 
Total 
134,428,575 61. 247. 873 , 195. 676. 44S 
45.6 
1 Net cost plus interest. 
It will be noted that there are wide differences between the per- 
centages given in the last column, representing the various projects. 
These differences are due largely to differences in the time when 
expenditures were made, that is. how long interest has been running, 
and differences in the time when repayment of construction charges 
5 In a statement before a Congressional committee on December 11. 1922, the Director 
of the Reclamation Service estimated the receipts for the fiscal year 1924 from con- 
struction repayments at 84,000,000. 
90478' 
-•:-!- 
