LAND RECLAMATION POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES 23 
As at Durham, many settlers are in arrears in their payments, 
and in addition to this burden the board must continue to carry 
the burden of interest and overhead expenses chargeable to the 
unsold land. In this respect the experience of the board is exactly 
parallel to that of private enterprises, except that the creditor of 
the board is the State, which created it, and, consequently, the board 
is not forced to make collections and can, in its turn, be lenient with 
settlers. 
The work has been financed by direct appropriations made by the 
legislature. A proposal to issue bonds for obtaining additional 
funds, passed by the legislature in 1921, was referred to a popular 
vote in 1922 and defeated. The legislature in 1923 made no further 
appropriation for the work. The appropriation already made, how- 
ever, constitutes a revolving fund, and payments made by settlers 
become available for new work. "Without further legislation,, future 
settlements must be limited to those that can be carried on with 
the receipts from settlers on the existing projects. 
If it develops that the State settlement projects are a financial 
success, and that settlers can succeed on the prepared farms pur- 
chased on easy terms, when they can not under other conditions, 
these experiments may show the way for private enterprise, if the 
State does not provide for further work. 
PROPOSED FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION. 
On account of a desire to reclaim lands more rapidly than can be 
done under the Federal reclamation act, because of the smallness 
of the fund; or under private enterprise, because of the difficulty of 
financing the work, there have been proposals to combine Federal 
and State efforts. The plan proposed is for the Federal Govern- 
ment to build the reclamation works for organized irrigation dis- 
tricts, take the bonds of the districts in payment for their work, 
hold the bonds until the advance in land values is sufficient to make 
the bonds saleable, and then sell the bonds to reimburse itself for 
its expenditures. It is proposed that the Federal Government shall 
issue its own bonds to obtain the funds for this work, in the first 
instance. 
It will be observed that this scheme involves the elimination of 
the subsidy feature of the reclamation act, since it is proposed to 
have the Federal Government issue interest-bearing bonds to obtain 
funds and to have the districts issue interest -bearing bonds to the 
Government. Consequently, the farmers whose lands will be liable 
for the district bonds will be called upon to pay interest on deferred 
payments, and the burden will begin to accumulate on the land as 
soon as bonds are issued, rather than when application for water 
is made. Under the existing law no interest on the funds invested 
by the Federal Government is included as a part of the cost of con- 
struction, payments do not begin until the Secretary of the Interior 
issues public notice, and there are no interest charges during the 
period elapsing between the beginning of construction and the time 
when payments begin, nor on deferred payments thereafter. The 
amount of the subsidy represented by this relief from interest 
charges has been discussed. (See pp. 7-12.) 
