OCR Text |
Show 38 subsidizing the cost of irrigation development to the homestead system. Under its terms, qualified settlers could take up to as much as a section of land but in so doing obligated themselves to get water on it within a specified time period. As it worked out, the Desert Land Act was no panacea to the problems of irrigation development Indeed, it invited abuse and soon agitation for a better reclamation policy was widespread. One of the earliest voices was that of John Wesley Powell whose Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of Land of Utah ( 1878) proposed fundamental changes in land policy to facilitate irrigation's development, hi 1889 Richard J. Hinton submitted a detailed examination of irrigation projects throughout the West and a special committee of the United States Senate set off on a wide tour of the arid regions pursuant to authorizing an irrigation survey under Powell's direction. Simultaneously, the Irrigation Congress movement got underway, meeting for the first time in Salt Lake City during 1891. Supported by land promoters, railroad tycoons, irrigation companies, and Mormon churchmen, but few actual farmers, the Irrigation Congresses drew from Powell, Hinton, and other experts to point out the utter hopelessness of settlers or other single individuals trying to develop water for irrigation agriculture. They called for Congress to cede the public lands to the states in the arid regions. Congress refused to turn over the entire public domain to the states, but was willing to parcel out substantial chunks. To this end Wyoming Senator Joseph M. Carey introduced a bill authorizing special land grants in arid states and placing the obligation for reclamation upon the states. The states would then enact plans for irrigation development and land distribution which was to go only to actual settlers in tracts no larger than a quarter- section. Passed in 1894, the Carey Land Act did not work well in many states. It was supplemented, but not replaced, by the Reclamation Act of 1902 which placed responsibility for reclamation directly upon the federal government. 1 The important point here is that both the Carey Land Act and the Reclamation Act required action on the part of the arid states. Because of the requirements associated with federal programs, it was necessary for Utah to make changes in its irrigation and water development policy if it wished to benefit from federal help. More traditional, but also requiring state action, was Congress's practice of making land grants to states in the enabling acts that allowed them to draft constitutions and pass from territorial status to full sisterhood in the national union. By 1894, when Congress passed the Utah Enabling Act, the arsenal of federal land grants to the states was large, including one for 500,000 acres. The sale of this land was to provide funds for the development of reservoirs for irrigation purposes. Like the Carey Land Act and the Reclamation Act of 1902, the availability of this 1The literature on this development is large. I have used the widely recognized Paul W. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development, ( Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1968), pp 634- 698. Also the following are useful; Richard J. Hinton, " Irrigation in the United States. Its Extent and methods, with Digest of Laws Governing Water Supply", Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49th Congress, 2nd Series, Volume 1, Number 15 ( serial number 2450); John Wesley Powell, Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah, ( Washington D. C.: Govemment Printing Office, 1878). |