OCR Text |
Show RECLAMATION OF THE ARID LANDS 675 tion Investigations in the Department of Agriculture from 1899 to 1907, in charge of the water conservation and reclamation program of the State of Victoria, Australia, from 1907 to 1915, a member of the faculty of the University of California, chairman of its Department of Irrigation and head of California's Land Settlement Board from 1917 to 1923. Thoroughly believing that through reclamation of the arid lands the West could be made to blossom like the Garden of Eden, Mead kept his feet on the ground, gave adequate consideration to economic and social factors in determining the feasibility of projects, and felt that an entirely new method of accounting was necessary in appraising them. Subsequently, as Commissioner of Reclamation, Mead kept closely in touch with the people on the projects and had their support as well as that of the business interests and the engineering fraternity. Through masterful use of publicity he molded them into a power group effectively supporting the reclamation program. He had been quite critical of the practices of the Reclamation Service and his views show throughout the Report of the Fact Finders Committee, as Work's committee of special advisers was called.124 The committee summarized the financial position of the government reclamation projects to June 30, 1923, showing in round numbers that out of a total of $143 million only $101 million was supposed to be repaid out of water right contracts and that the balance was unsecured. Water users had repaid 10 percent of construction costs subject to repayment, had defaulted on 14 percent, and had defaulted on 17 percent of the operation and management charges, notwithstanding the extensions which had been granted. Out of 28 projects the settlers on only one had met all payments when due. Insolvency and failure faced a number. The area originally estimated to be reclaimed was 3,056,427 acres and of this amount irrigation water was available for 1,692,700 but only 1,202,130 acres were actually irrigated in 1922. The average estimated construction cost per acre was $30.75; the actual cost was $83.76 an acre for the area for which water was available and $117.94 per acre for the area actually being irrigated. Piecemeal construction over many years, "irremediable errors" in selection, frequent changes in plans and enlargement of projects had added to costs. The committee frankly recognized that a part of the investment in reclamation would never be recovered. The plight of the settlers was attributed to: failure to seek the aid of agricultural authorities in planning; failure to classify the lands and to levy water charges in relation to their ability to produce which had led to inflexible charges for all lands receiving the water; and failure to select as settlers men with sufficient capital and experience who were interested in farm making, rather than in profiting from rising land values after a year or two. Evidencing the malfunctioning of the program and the dissatisfaction with conditions were the high rate of turnover and the relatively few original settlers remaining. Finally, bureaucratic control from Washington had produced in the settlers a growing inclination to look upon themselves as wards of the government entitled to generous and continuing aid.125 The committee examined the Newlands Act, especially Section 9 which required 124 Paul K. Conkin's excellent article on "The Vision of Elwood Mead" in Agricultural History, 34:88-97, is more concerned with Mead's promotion of settlement communities than with his career as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. 128 The report of the Special Advisers on Reclamation, or the Fact Finders Committee, appeared as "Federal Reclamation by Irrigation," S. Doc., 68th Cong., 1st sess., No. 92 (Serial No. 8238), pp. xi-xvi, 24-27. |