22 BULLETIN 1257, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
were 139 families on the settlement, made up of 105 farmers and 3-1 
farm laborers. The crop report for the year 1922 shows practically 
all of the land in either crops or pasture. Thus, within five years 
from the purchase of the land it was all in use. This is in marked 
contrast with the common experience with reclaimed land (see p. 32), 
and shows that in this instance and in this respect the law has come 
up to expectations. In this instance conditions were peculiarly 
favorable. The project was small, the reclamation work was done 
during a period of low prices, while the land came on the market at 
a time when high prices, patriotic appeals, nation-wide free adver- 
tising, and the prestige of State construction all combined to bring 
about quick sales. The test of the financial success of the plan has 
not come, for payments extend over a long period of years. The 
report referred to contains the following statement regarding pay- 
ments by the settlers at Durham : 
The first two years they (payments) were made with remarkable prompt- 
ness and for the full amount due, but as prices dropped the strain showed in 
the division's receipts. Instead of being made promptly and for the full amount, 
payments would be made as the settler could raise the money and in what- 
ever amounts he could get together. If the Durham settlers had all had to 
depend on the local banks for money for development, half of them would have 
lost their farms during the last two years (p. 25). 
While the report does not say so, specifically, it seems to indicate 
that at least half of the settlers were sufficiently in. arrears in their 
payments to have made them liable to foreclosure under ordinary 
mortgages. The board was in position to carry them over this de- 
pression, when a bank might not have been in such a position. In 
this respect State reclamation has the same advantage that na- 
tional reclamation has over private reclamation — the financing 
agency is not forced to the wall, since the public treasury carries 
the burden. 
The Delhi tract was purchased in 1919, and in 1922, when the 
report referred to was prepared, the irrigation system had not been 
completed, but it was so far completed that the last of the land was 
offered to settlers in November, 1922. The first of the land was 
opened to settlement in May, 1920, a second unit in September, 1920, 
a third unit in January, 1921, and the fourth and last unit in Novem- 
ber, 1922. In September, 1922, 5,640 acres had been offered for 
sale, and 4,174 acres, or 74 per cent, had been sold. That is, in three 
years from the time the State purchased the land, 74 per cent of that 
which was ready for settlers had been sold. Unpublished reports 
indicate that since the date of the published report sales of the 
balance of the land then on sale ana of the fourth unit have not 
been so rapid. 
This project encountered conditions exactly opposite to those at 
Durham. The reclamation work was done at peak prices, while the 
land came on the market during the depression in agriculture. 
Notwithstanding these conditions, the rate of settlement has been 
much more rapid than is customary (see p. 32). The rapidity of 
settlement of the remaining land will depend largely upon general 
agricultural conditions. The selling price of land is high, and the 
cost of putting in water-distributing systems and preparing land 
for irrigation is high; therefore, high prices for agricultural 
products must be in prospect to induce settlement. 
