land reclamation policies in the united states 35 
the time when this pressure will become acute differ widely, but 
all agree that the time will come when it will be necessary to bring 
to its highest use all our land that now produces little or nothing. 
On the other hand, there is rather general agreement that under 
the stimulus pf war prices, and the large demand created by the tem- 
porary decline of European agriculture during the World War, 
our agriculture has been over-developed and the immediate problem 
is to adjust production to decreased demand rather than to expand 
it to meet increasing demand. For the immedate future, therefore, 
there is no national need for reclaiming more land. This does not 
mean, necessarily, that all reclamation work should stop, but it does 
mean that the general policy for the immediate future should be 
the cessation of the undertaking of new enterprises, unless some 
strong reasons for departure from this general policy are shown. 
When the demand for agricultural products shall be such that 
it is necessary to produce more, it will be possible to meet the need 
by (1) obtaining larger yields from lands already growing crops 
by larger application of fertilizer and labor, the use of improved 
varieties, etc.; (2) using for crops land now producing little or 
nothing, but not needing reclamation, in the sense in which that 
term is used in this discussion; and (3) reclaiming more land. Con- 
sidered purely from a food standpoint it is a matter of indifference 
which process is used, and that one should be used which is most 
economical under conditions existing at the time. It is undoubtedly 
true that, if it is not interfered with by artificial stimulation in any 
direction, development will take all of these directions simultaneously. 
With reference to reclaiming more land, the following courses 
suggest themselves: (1) Leave development to private agencies or 
to semipublic agencies, such as irrigation, drainage, and reclama- 
tion districts, as is now done under the Carey Act and the Federal 
irrigation district act; (2) continue subsidized development, as 
under the existing reclamation act; (3) adopt a Government 
reclamation plan devoid of subsidy; or (4) continue with our 
present or a modified Government plan, while encouraging private 
and semipublic agencies. 
The first questions involved in determining on future Government 
policies are the necessity for or the wisdom of a subsidy to land 
reclamation, and what kind of a subsidy should be provided if any. 
It has been stated that considered strictly from the standpoint of 
obtaining a food supply, it is a matter of indifference whether we get 
it from reclaimed land or elsewhere. From that standpoint there is 
no reason to subsidize one method of obtaining food rather than an- 
other. That is, the subsidy, if there should be one, should be for 
the production of food by any means and not for its production by 
a particular means. 
A shortage may exist in food supply generally or in the supply of 
some one commodity. If it is deemed advisable to subsidize the 
production of some one commodity, and reclaimed land is par- 
ticularly adapted to the production of that commodity, the subsidy 
might take the form of a public contribution to the cost of land 
reclamation. To this time, however, reclaimed lands have not been 
devoted to crops not grown on other land, but rather to the crops 
grown generally throughout the country. The report of the census 
