OCR Text |
Show 674 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT been granted, but- its legality could be questioned and the extent of it is not clear, since the officials were more concerned to give attention to their successes than their failures. It was easy for an incoming Secretary of the Interior, following 8 years of control of the Department by the opposite party, to say in 1921 that "very many mistakes had been made in the past and at times much dissatisfaction has been expressed at the management of the reclamation work." "Those connected with the Department and engaged in securing settlers for the lands have . . . been overly enthusiastic and painted the beauties and advantages of some of our projects in gorgeous colors. Stern reality has in many instances disenchanted the settler. . . ." But he then went on to say "practically every project is successful" which was far from accurate if the ordinary meaning of success is meant.120 The pressing need for relief induced Congress to adopt a joint resolution on May 17, 1921, which stated that because of the financial stringency and the low prices for agricultural goods, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to furnish water during the season of 1921 to applicants who were in arrears for more than one calendar year.121 The 2 following years having brought no improvement, Congress voted in each to extend an additional year of credit to hard pressed delinquents who were not able to meet their obligations but who were continuing to farm their land. Interest on delayed payments was to be reduced from 12 to 6 percent and the accrued obligations were to be added to the total due, with payments to extend over 20 years from the enactment of the extension. In 1924 extensions of payments to March 1, 1927, were authorized and in 1926 additional ex- tensions were allowed.122 Such a record of failure dating from the relief measures of 1911 with 1,741 applications for extension under the Act of 1922, 3,239 under the Act of 1923 and with 60 percent of the water users in arrears by 1925 made necessary a serious reconsideration of the entire program. 123 Committee of Special Advisers Hubert Work, who became Secretary of the Interior in 1923, sensing the unrest among settlers on the irrigation projects became convinced that only through a complete overhaul of activities of the Reclamation Service would it be possible to save it from catastrophe from within and political destruction from without. Work appointed a Committee of Special Advisers on Reclamation to hold hearings in the West and to make recommendations for changes, improvements, and abandonments. It was no face-saving committee, but a group of distinguished leaders well competent to conduct the investigation. Thomas E. Campbell, who was just completing a term as Governor of Arizona and who was familiar personally with many of the problems facing irrigation farmers, was chairman. John A. Widtoe, former president of the University of Utah and author of two works on dry farming and irrigation, James R. Garfield, a former Secretary of the Interior in the Roosevelt administration and, above all, Elwood Mead constituted the better known of the six-member committee. Mead had been state engineer responsible for water policies in Wyoming from 1890 to 1899, head of the Office of Irriga- 120 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1921, p. 9. 121 42 Stat., Part 1, p. 4. 122 Act of March 31, 1922, 42 Stat., Part 1, p. 489; Act of Feb. 28, 1923, 42 Stat., Part 1, p. 1324; Act of May 9, 1924, 43 Stat., Part 1, p. 116; Act of May 25, 1926, 44 Stat., Part 2, p. 648. 123 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1925, pp. 8-9. |