| OCR Text |
Show 64 to spend $ 5.48 per acre of irrigated land under the Hatchtown Project and $ 7.50 per acre under the Piute Project. After cost overruns and acreage adjustments, the state spent $ 18.67 per acre on the land irrigated before the Hatchtown Dam washout. ( After the washout, because of the decrease in irrigated acreage, the cost per acre increased significantly.) 32 Per acre final costs on the Piute Project were $ 32.50.33 At the time these projects were contemplated, the average value per acre of improved farmland, with functional irrigation systems and farm buildings in place, was only $ 34.34 By the time the projects were completed, the state had spent considerably more money than the land was worth. This contributed to the repayment difficulties faced by the fanners under the project. The projects were failures on two counts. First, the defaults caused the state to lose a substantial portion of the reservoir land grant fund. Second, the projects developed irrigated land at a greater cost than the value of that land after the project. After the dismal experiences associated with these two projects, the state's water management officials ceased acting in the role of direct developer. The main responsibility for financing and building water projects was shifted from the state budgets to other parties interested in water development. The Reservoir Land Grant Fund Certain other land grant financed projects and activities are smaller, but they are in the same class because of the serious nature of the financial difficulties involved. These included the farm loan program, which will be discussed in the next chapter, and two substantial water projects in central and eastern Utah. Over the years, the Land Commissioners had invested money from the reservoir land grant fund in the bonds of the Central Utah Water Company in Millard County and the Carbon Water Company in Carbon County. By 1928 the Central Utah Water Company was in arrears by $ 461,154 and the Carbon Water Company payments were $ 122,300 behind, for a total of $ 583,454. At the time, there was little hope that either the interest or the principal would be returned to the reservoir land grant fund. 35 All in all, the picture was bleak. The Central Utah and the Carbon Water companies were in default, and the Board of Land Commissioners had to deal with problems of bad loans and debts. As a result, the state's reservoir land grant fund was significantly short of money for water development. 32William M. Timmins, " The Failure of the Hatchtown Dam, 1914," Utah Historical Quarterly Volume 36 Number 3, pp 263- 273 claims that no additional land was brought under irrigation after the washout. If this is true the cost per acre approaches infinity. The Board of Land Commissioners claimed that some additional land was brought under irrigation by the existing canal system utilizing only diversion structures. Under these assumptions the lower cost figure per acre of $ 252.14 is obtained. 33Using the state's selling price ( the legislature specified the price had to equal the costs) of $ 1,300,272 and the acreage figure of 40,000 acres. ^ United States Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States taken in the Year 1910, Volume VH, Agriculture 1909 and 1910, Nebraska - Wyoming, ( Washington D. C: Government Printing Office, 1913), p 720. Underlining by author. 35The initial cost of the bonds is not available. However, in 1928 the value of the unpaid principle and interest on the bonds of the two companies was: Central Utah Water Company $ 461,154; and the Carbon Water Company $ 122,300. State of Utah, " Sixteenth Biennial Report of the Board of Land Commissioners for the Years 1927 and 1928," Public Documents. |
