| OCR Text |
Show RECLAMATION OF THE ARID LANDS 679 cess holdings were prohibited by law from receiving water he reported that the government had been unable to cure the trouble. "Although the spirit of the law is broken, the letter of the law is observed by fictitious conveyances, and the Government is almost helpless." What was necessary was more rigid and searching investigation of excess-land holdings and better control over private holdings when projects were adopted, together with the selection of real dirt farmers, not petty speculators drawn by government publicity and the hope of getting by lottery a tract they could quickly sell at a profit.133 The Commissioner returned to the ex- 133 Ibid., pp. 11, 34. Four bulletins prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation to draw attention to the "Opportunities for Farm Ownership" on reclamation projects provide information concerning areas where land was becoming available for settlement. On two projects-the Lower Yellowstone in Montana and North Dakota and the Belle Fourche in South Dakota-there were no public lands open to homestead; on the other two-the Willwood Division of the Shoshone project in Wyoming and the Tule Lake Division of the Klamath project in Oregon and California-all lands available were public. Prospective homesteaders were told that they must have at least $2,000 or part cash and livestock and equipment, must have had 2 years of experience in farming, and must appear before an examining board to pass inspection. The brochures provided information concerning crops, transportation facilities, marketing possibilities and, for the projects without public lands, readers were informed that the prices of land and selling terms were controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation which approved options on farms or prospective farms. The selling prices were determined by an independent committee of appraisers. On the first 20 farms announced for the Belle Fourche project the average size was 136 acres, the average number of irrigable acres was 74, the average price was $4,990. Included in these 20 were some well-developed farms. The average cost of a water right was $45 an acre of which 13 percent had been paid by the landowners. The operation and maintenance charge ran from $1.25 to $1.50 an acre. Opportunities for Farm Ownership on the Belle Fourche Project (Washington, 1927); Opportunities for Farm Ownership on the Willwood Division, Shoshone Irrigation Project, Wyoming (Washington, 1927); Opportunity for Farm Ownership on the Tule Lake Division, Klamath Irrigation Project (Washington, 1927). cess-lands question in 1925, saying that conditions were ripe for dividing up the larger holdings which were not using the water available to them. Also, the high proportion of tenancy was a source of great concern to him. With government aid tenants might be helped to become owners of excess lands. The Bureau had not thought proper to enforce the excess-lands provisions during the agricultural depression following the World War but with better conditions he thought the disregard of the law should cease. Interestingly, Mead came to feel the growing rate of tenancy on the reclamation projects was a source of alarm before the Department of Agriculture felt much concern. Mead was troubled, and for good reason, because on some of the projects the population, the number of owner operators, and the acreage of cultivated land had declined. Delinquencies were reaching a staggering proportion. Closer settlement, smaller farm units, more efficient use of the land were his objectives. But settlers had come to expect further extensions, counted upon it, did not make their payments even when they probably could, and those who did pay were discouraged by the fact that others, equally able to, were waiting for further government aid. Mead favored legal action to compel payments, while advocating abandonment of land not suitable for farming.134 The measures Mead and the other advisers regarded as extremely important to revive the spirits of the heavily indebted settlers on project lands and to induce them to make greater efforts to meet their water payments were: the forgiveness or elimination of some $14 million in construction costs, or approximately 8 percent of the total, on the ground that items had been included in the original sum that should 134 Bureau of Reclamation, Twenty Fourth Annual Report, 1925, pp. 3-12. |
