LAND RECLAMATION POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES 
9 
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 4 per cent. 
Table 3. — Increase in net cost of United States reclamation projects caused by 
charging interest on net investment. 
Project. 
Net cost. 
4 per cent 
interest on 
net invest- 
ment. 
Total. 
Per cent 
increase 
on cost. 
Salt River 
Yuma 
Orland 
Grand Valley 
Uncompahgr e 
Boise 
King Hill . 
Minidoka 
Garden City... 
Huntley 
Milk River 
St. Mary's storage 
Sun River 
Lower Yellowstone 
North Platte 
Newlands 
Carlsbad 
Hondo 
Rio Grande 
North Dakota pumping 
Umatilla 
Klamath 
Belle Fourche 
Strawberry.. _ 
Okanogan 
Yakima 
Shoshone 
Total 
$10, 548, 119 
8, 942, 183 
1, 057, 959 
3, 765, 199 
6, 667, 183 
12, 425, 781 
1, 471, 624 
6, 846, 240 
385, 651 
1, 467, 685 
6, 559, 896 
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 
$7, 308, 919 
4, 749, 469 
437, 899 
1, 102, 079 
4, 041, 944 
5, 820, 643 
122, 908 
3, 108, 928 
273, 988 
869, 309 
2, 212, 751 
1, 365, 630 
280/ 
4, 371, 645 
672, 508 
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, 038 
13, 691, 652 
1, 495, 858 
4, 867, 268 
10, 709, 127 
18, 246, 424 
1, 594, 532 
9, 955, 168 
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 
41.4 
29.3 
60.6 
46.8 
8.4 
45.4 
71.0 
59.2 
33.7 
33.8 
64.0 
38.3 
65.3 
48.1 
85.6 
18.6 
88.5 
43.8 
47.4 
60.8 
45.3 
36.9 
38.5 
41.6 
134, 428, 575 
61, 247, 873 
195, 676, 448 
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 $4,000,000. 
24728°— 27 2 
