36 BULLETIN 1257, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
of 1920 shows that of the total acreage of irrigated crops reported 31 
per cent was in cereals, 53 per cent was in hay and forage crops, 2 
per cent was in vegetables, 6 per cent was in orchard fruits, 4 per 
cent was in sugar beets, and 2 per cent in cotton. Of the total 
acreage of drained land, 79 per cent reported cereals as the prin- 
cipal crop, 6 per cent hay and forage, 6 per cent cotton, 4 per 
cent sugar, with the remainder distributed among many crops. 
Another condition that might justify a subsidy would be the ex- 
istence of resources that would remain undeveloped except for the 
local production of a food supply or raw materials. At one time this 
condition existed in the West, but it does not now exist. Practically 
every section of the TTest now produces so much that it is necessary 
to find markets for its products outside of that region. In the early 
years of the reclamation of our arid lands the farmers used a cheap 
water supply to produce for a high-priced local market; in recent 
years they use a high-priced water supply to produce for distant 
markets where they must compete with supplies grown without 
irrigation. The same condition exists in the regions in which the 
large areas of unreclaimed wet lands are situated. Crops grown on 
reclaimed lands would have to seek markets elsewhere, rather than 
supply a local need. It does not appear that the production of local 
food supplies to make possible the development of other industries 
justifies a subsidy to reclamation. 
The compelling reasons for reclamation in the past have been: 
(1) The apparent opportunity for profit in supplying water for 
irrigation or in selling reclaimed land; and (2) local desire for 
the development of the community, even if the direct returns are 
not sufficient to justify the cost of reclamation, the argument being 
that the " creation of taxable values " and the general benefit to the 
community were sufficient to justify a subsidy. If a subsidy is 
granted on these grounds, it seems evident that those who reap the 
benefit should pay the subsidy. The political subdivisions that levy 
on the taxable values created should pay the subsidy if it is justified 
on this ground; and local urban property should contribute if the 
upbuilding of the local communities is the object of land reclamation 
in their vicinity. The reasons just discussed can not justify a 
national subsidy. If there is to be one it should be local. 
Federal aid in reclamation has been compared to Federal aid to 
farmers under the various rural credits acts. There is, however, the 
wide distinction that there is no subsidy in the farm loan act. Funds 
are obtained by the sale of bonds, and borrowers of these funds pay 
a sufficient rate of interest to pay the interest on these bonds and 
to meet operating expenses ; while under the reclamation law, interest 
on the funds which go into the reclamation fund is not considered as 
a cost, and no interest is charged on deferred pajmients to be made 
by the water users. To be sure, the reclamation fund is made up 
from the receipts of the United States from various sources, and 
those particular funds are not borrowed on interest; but so long us 
the Federal Government has borrowed large sums, interest on bor- 
rowed funds is, in fact, a cost for this work. To make an advance 
of funds for the construction of reclamation works comparable to 
a farm loan, interest on the investment must be considered a part 
of cost, and interest must be charged on deferred payments at a 
