| OCR Text |
Show RECLAMATION OF THE ARID LANDS Second, there was the Department of Agriculture. When Congress was considering the Newlands bill, Elwood Mead, chief of the Office of Irrigation Investigations in this Department had under way studies of the "laws and institutions of the different States relating to the ownership and distribution of the public water supplies and the engineering and agricultural questions connected with the actual use of the water in irrigation." Among the issues being examined were canal management, quantities of water required for various crops and crops on different soils, pumping methods and costs, and engineering questions involved in the draining of irrigated land.60 The third department equipped with men technically trained and experienced in the problems of irrigation engineering was the Department of the Interior. Here Frederick H. Newell, head of the Division of Hydrography of the Geological Survey, had his staff making studies of the geology and water resources of various parts of the arid region as well as of other parts of the country. Over the course of years the Geological Survey, the principal scientific agency of the government at the time, had published an amazing number and variety of papers relating to geological problems, many of which were concerned with topography, rock formation, stream flow, the water table and artesian wells in the semi-arid states. Outstanding members of the staff were Charles D. Walcott, a distinguished paleontologist, George Otis Smith, later to be Director, and Charles R. Van Hise, a geologist who became president of the University of Wisconsin in its great day. Since Congress had placed sole responsibility for the development of irrigation works with the Department of the Interior, it was to be expected that this Department -notwithstanding its unfamiliarity with agriculture, soil science, crops, markets, construction of dams, canals and other water works, and all the engineering involved in such construction-should proceed to develop a bureau that would in all these and many other activities parallel and duplicate functions being performed in the Departments of Agriculture and War. It is not in the nature of bureaucracy to share responsibility where Congress does not require it. In the discussions leading to the adoption of the Newlands Act it is understandable why its advocates should play down the amount of funds which would be available for projects. Indeed, annual receipts from the public lands (including fees and commissions) had in recent years been quite small, ranging from $2,087,931 in 1897 to $4,056,812 in 1900. It would take many years before reclamation's proportion of these sums would enable substantial projects to be completed. But income from the lands was increasing, reaching $4,307,437 in 1901, $5,880,088 in 1902, and $10,557,618 in 1903. By June 30, 1902, or shortly thereafter, there was available for reclamation projects $7,729,341 and a year later the accumulated total had grown to $16,191,-836.(il Since these funds were to be expended on projects in 16 states, somewhat in proportion to the income from land sales within them, the share of no single state could be very large, but large projects could be undertaken whose construction and hence whose costs could be spread over a number of years. The credits accumulated of the 16 states for reclamation projects are given in the table that follows. A notable feature of the Newlands Act was that it did not prescribe what projects should be undertaken first but left their 60 Department of Agriculture, Yearbook, 1902, pp. 735-36. 61 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1903, p. 295. |
