4 BULLETIN 1257, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
than by purchase, a point of view that has dominated our land 
policy since that time. 
When the homestead act was passed the fertile plains of the Mis- 
sissippi Valley were available for settlement. In large part, these 
lands were open, grass-covered plains that could be plowed and 
seeded without " reclamation.*' When attempts were made to settle 
the arid lands of the West it was found that some modifications to 
the homestead plan were necessary if these lands were to be trans- 
formed into farms. 
An analysis of the various Federal legislative acts dealing with 
western lands shows a preservation and continuation of the funda- 
mental policy of the homestead act — the creation of farm homes. 
These acts show a progressive realization of the difficulties of estab- 
lishing farms on arid land and represent a series of attempts to 
overcome these difficulties as they have presented themselves, always 
in accord with the policy of facilitating the process of settlement. 
Act of 1866. — The first difficulties presenting themselves related to 
the taking of water from streams to the land to be irrigated. This 
involved both the right to take the water and the right to construct 
ditches over public lands lying between the points of diverting water 
from streams and the land on which the water was to be used. There 
was uncertainty about both rights, and the act of July 26, 1866, re- 
moved this uncertainty, so far as the Federal Government was con- 
cerned, by recognizing rights acquired under " local customs, laws, 
and the decisions of courts," and by acknowledging and confirming 
the right-of-way for ditches over public lands. 
This law has been passed upon by the United States Supreme 
Court many times, and is usually considered a sort of Magna Charta 
for the State control of nonnavigable streams of the arid region. 
Whether or not the rights of the States are based on this act of Con- 
gress, or merely acknowledged by it, it represents an important 
policy and one that has been much questioned since the Federal Gov- 
ernment supplemented its policy of removing obstacles to reclama- 
tion by active participation in reclamation. 
Those who have had Government reclamation work in charge, 
and those who have favored Federal control Have held that State 
control of the water in many instances has hampered them in the 
carrying out of their policies. However, the United States reclama- 
tion act itself confirms and strengthens the policy laid down by the 
act of 1866, b} T providing that (sec. 8) nothing in the act shall be 
"construed as affecting or intended to affect" State laws providing 
for the control of water used in irrigation, and that in carrying out 
the provisions of the act the Secretary of the Interior shall proceed 
in conformity with such laws. 
The desert land act. — The next act of Congress (after 1866) deal- 
ing with reclamation is the desert land act. This act, approved 
March 3, 1877, provided for the procuring of title to 640 acres of 
arid land by conducting water upon it and the payment of $1.25 
per acre. The entryman was required also to expend at least $3 
per acre in improvements and actually to reclaim at least one-eighth 
of the land. Desert lands are defined as ww lands exclusive of timber 
lands which will not, without irrigation, produce some agricultural 
crop." The area that may be taken by one person under this act 
was limited by the act of 1890 to 320 acres. The reason assigned for 
