OCR Text |
Show RECLAMATION OF THE ARID LANDS 687 users which were far greater than their construction obligations to the Federal government. Moreover, farmers outside the projects, especially the drought-stricken farmers who were paying 5 percent on their government loans, would feel too much favor was being shown settlers on government projects.154 Congress was not yet ready to grant a general moratorium but on April 1, 1932, it did adopt a relief act freeing water users' associations or districts from their 1931 payments and 50 percent of their 1932 payments but requiring 3 percent on the delayed payments. Conditions not improving, in 1933 payments of the remaining 50 percent of water charged for 1932 and for all of 1933 were deferred.155 In 1934 and again in 1935 water charges for those years were deferred and in 1936 one half were deferred. It was becoming apparent to Mead that while some water users needed relief from their payments others did not but all were crying for the same treatment and the demand for relief was becoming chronic. He was concerned partly because the stoppage of payments into the revolving fund would reduce the amount available for the completion of projects already under way, and partly because he was proud of the success his Bureau had had in building dams, providing water, and settling people on the land. Mead was really interested in the settler's welfare but he was fearful that their constant appeals for relief would 164 New Reclamation Era, XXIII (January 1932), 2-3. Congress had voted an advance of $5 million to the Reclamation Fund on March 3, 1931, to compensate for the slowness with which payments were being made into it and to permit the faster completion of existing projects. 46 Stat., Part 1, p. 1507. Data on the changes in irrigated acreage and the total crop value was provided by Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, March 7, 1968. 155 Acts of March 2 and 3, 1933; March 27, 1934; June 13, 1935; and April 14, 1936: 47 Stat., Part 1, pp. 75, 1427; 48 Stat., Part 1, p. 600; 49 Stat., Part 1, p. 337. jeopardize the prospects for additional appropriations from Congress or grants from Public Works funds. He could not fail to see the parallel between the situation on the reclamation projects and that of thousands of settlers who had bought public lands on government credit in the early years of the Federal government. Almost at once they had fallen into arrears, besought aid from Congress, won 20 relief acts, but brought the credit system into such disgrace that it was abolished in 1820 and not again revived until the adoption of the Newlands Act in 1902. To Mead the parallel was too close; it was possible to learn from history. In 1936 Congress provided for the appointment of a committee to investigate the economic and financial conditions of the settlers on the various projects to determine their ability to make payments without undue hardship.156 Obviously it was no longer possible to maintain that settlers on government irrigation projects could return to the Reclamation Fund the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance. Increasing attention was therefore given in the publicity of the Bureau of Reclamation to the sale of hydro-electric power produced at the dams as the principal source for the payment of construction costs.157 Equally stressed was the effect that cheap power would have in building up the West by drawing industry, the galvanizing effect upon western growth of the construction of huge dans and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, the jobs that would be provided, the acceleration all this would give to the growth of population in the semi-arid states, and the expanded 156 49 Stat., Part 1, p. 1207. 167 Though the sale of power was one of the most important factors in making possible additional reclamation projects it was still necessary to remember that the primary purpose of the projects was irrigation of the arid lands and that water had to be stored for the growing season. |