24 BULLETIN 1257, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
It is evident, therefore, that the cost to farmers under the proposed 
scheme would be very much greater than the cost under the existing 
reclamation law. 
It should be noted that" it is proposed that the Federal Govern- 
ment shall finance construction in the first instance. There is noth- 
ing in the history of either the Eeclamation Service or the irrigation 
districts to indicate that the reclaimed lands will be put into use 
promptly, or that settlers will be able to meet their payments 
promptly when they get on the land.. It is not improbable, there- 
fore, that should this scheme be adopted the Federal Government 
would be compelled to carry the investments indefinitely: or, if it 
should sell the district bonds to the public, probably it would be 
morally, if not legally, bound to guarantee payments of both interest 
and principal as they become due. 
DRAINAGE RECLAMATION. 
Attention has been called to the fact that the Federal Govern- 
ment, by the acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860, granted all the Federal 
swamp lands to the States in which they were situated. Except for 
these acts the Federal Government may be said to have no drainage 
reclamation policy. From time to time there have been proposals to 
extend the provisions of the reclamation act, which are now limited 
to providing a water supply for irrigation and incidental drain- 
age, to the draining of wet lands, but no such action has been taken. 
The reclamation act was originally a western measure. It pro- 
vided that the proceeds from the sale of public lands, which were 
mostly arid or semiarid, and situated in the Western States, should 
be used to provide a water supply for the irrigation of arid and 
semiarid lands within those States. It nominally applied principally 
to public lands, although private lands were included in its operation. 
Under those circumstances there was no reason for including recla- 
mation by drainage. But, in fact, a large part of the land in Federal 
reclamation projects is privately owned, and there is no inherent- 
reason why the general plan of the reclamation act should not be 
applied to the draining of privately-owned wet lands. The Govern- 
ment might with equal propriety, if it is considered wise, provide 
drainage works and collect the cost from the owners of the land 
benefited, just as it provides irrigation works in the West, under 
the law providing for the payment of the cost of construction by 
the water users. 
The proposals for combined Federal and district reclamation 
actively discussed on the preceding page have included drainage as 
well as irrigation. 
State drainage policies. — From the beginning of efforts to reclaim 
swamp and wet lands in the several States, the policy of the States 
has been to make the lands! pay for their own reclamation. The 
means used for the accomplishment of this purpose has been the 
adoption of legislation providing for the organization of districts, 
which are given the power to incur indebtedness and to assess the 
lands benefited to meet the cost of the construction and maintenance 
of drains. 
