LAND RECLAMATION POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES 7 
the bonds were liens on the land. Neither of these tilings is true, and 
lax administration resulted in the undertaking of many unsound proj- 
ects, to the great loss of both settlers and bond buyers. With closer 
public supervision and adequate financing of construction companies, 
there is no reason why the Carey Act should not prove useful in re- 
claiming public land. Because this act relates to public lands only, 
the field for its operation is constantly narrowing as the public lands 
are disposed of under this and other acts. 
The total area segregated for reclamation under this act from its 
passage to June 30, 1922, is 3,813,991.18 acres; the total area patented 
is 1,018,131.24; and the area still segregated but not yet patented is 
473,538.39. The balance of the segregations have been canceled. 
Originally the area to be taken under the Carey Act was limited to 
1,000,000 acres to each State containing arid land, but additional 
areas were granted to Idaho and Wyoming, the only States that have 
applied for sufficient land to exhaust the original grant, indicating 
that the limit on the area will be removed if occasion arises. 
Reclamation act. — The United States reclamation act (act of June 
17, 1902) provides for Government construction of irrigation works, 
with provision for repayment of the cost of construction by those who 
use the water. The repayment is spread over a period of 20 years, 
without interest on deferred payments. The public land within re- 
clamation projects is taken by settlers under the homestead law, so 
that the settler actually receives as a subsidy his land and the interest 
on his deferred payments. In so^ far as payments are not collected, 
the subsidy is increased by the amounts not paid and b} 7 interest 
thereon. 
While this act continues the policy of making homes on the land, 
it represents a fundamental change in policy in that it provides for a 
considerable public contribution, in addition to the land, toward de- 
fraying the cost of reclamation. It does not supersede any of the 
other laws, but merely provides another means of reclamation. How- 
ever, the tendency is to discourage development under other acts, by 
offering more favorable terms. 
The reason for the passage of the reclamation act was the difficulty 
of financing reclamation work in any other way. From the stand- 
point of the investor in reclamation enterprises, reclamation hy irri- 
gation in the United States had always been a failure. This was 
true of corporate enterprises, State district enterprises, and Carey 
Act enterprises. As a consequence, it had become almost impossible 
to obtain funds for reclamation work. The reclamation act provided 
the funds b} T creating a revolving reclamation fund from the receipts 
from the sale of public lands and added a subsidy by providing that 
the water users should repay only the cost of the irrigation works, 
without interest on deferred payments. 
The act provides that the users of water furnished by works built 
under the act shall repay the cost of building the works, but in com- 
puting this cost interest on the money invested is not included. 
Since the Government is paying large sums for interest on borrowed 
money, the cost of this work to the Government includes interest as 
well as the money actually spent on the work. The amount of this 
additional cost, represented by interest, is shown for the work as a 
whole in Table 1, and for the principal projects in the table that 
