OCR Text |
Show 78 extensively the Colorado River- Great Basin Project involving the Uintah, Duchesne, Utah, Sanpete, Sevier, Millard, Juab, and Salt Lake counties. 21 The Board of Land Commissioners In addition to the functions of water management carried on by the Utah Water Storage Commission, regulatory, administrative, and indirect developmental roles were carried out by the Board of Land Commissioners and the State Engineer's Office. Although the Board of Land Commissioners was a mature agency by 1921, it duties with respect to water development were diminishing. No new direct development projects were initiated under the Board of Land Commissioners after 4908. The only board involvement in direct development after the end of World War I was that associated with minimizing losses on the Hatchtown and Piute projects. The Board of Land Commissioner's role as a funding agency for private water development also decreased in importance as time passed. Board activities were eventually limited to the protection of the state's interests in land development, mineral rights, and resource ownership. However, because of the farm loan program, the Board of Land Commissioners still had indirect impacts on water development and land reclamation after 1921. Its role in this context can be best understood by reviewing the stages of the farm loan program. During the earliest years, from 1897 to perhaps 1910, it was successful. It was used mainly to finance improvements on individual farms, including irrigation systems. Loans were small and interest charges low. The farm loan program thereby promoted growth of Utah's agricultural sector. Initial success led the legislature to expand the farm loan program in 1911.22 That year the Board of Land Commissioners was instructed to give farmers first preference in the board's allocation of funds. For the next fifteen years the board followed a liberal lending policy of requiring very little capital, and by 1926 it had some $ 5,820,000 in outstanding loans. Although the rising complexity of development as project size increased detracted from the effectiveness of this program, the 1911 to 1926 period may also be judged to have been fairly successful. Problems eventually developed because the reservoir land grant funds on which the farm loan program depended were overextended, and because many recipients defaulted on repayment or made only partial repayment. 23 After 1926 the farm loan program faced serious problems. Times were hard economically, agricultural prices were poor, dependable crops like alfalfa seed were blighted, and a long era of diminished moisture was beginning. Irrigation and drainage districts also faced numerous difficulties that impacted on the welfare of individual district members. These districts were recipients of Reservoir Land Grant Fund loans and included individuals who borrowed from the fund. Farmers found it increasingly difficult to repay loans. Although the board was keenly aware of mounting difficulties by 1926, it continued to expand its loans until 1928, when it had nearly $ 6,000,000 outstanding. 24 21State of Utah, " Twenty First Biennial Report of the State Engineer to the Governor of the State of Utah for the Years 1937 and 1938," Public Documents, pp 78- 97. ^ State of Utah, Laws of the State of Utah ( 1911), Chapter 71, Section 1, p 100. 23Information on repayment was listed in State of Utah, " Annual Report of the Board of Land Commissioners for the Year 1911," Public Documents through State of Utah, " Annual Report of the Board of Land Commissioners for the Year 1928," Public Documents. ^ tate of Utah, " Annual Report of die Land Commissioners for die Year 1928," Public Documents, also see Table 4 p 80 |