Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-05-16
BISMARCK IRRIGATION PROJECT
Large and Enthusiastic Meeting Held to Explain
and Push the Enterprise
Instructive Talks and Explanations by State Engineer
Fellows, Engineer StOFfs and Others

gage as some may have supposed.
The owner can do as he pleases with
the land, sell it. rent it or mortgage
it as he sees fit, just the same as at
present. The water expense is simply
a tax like other taxes, only the gov
eminent collects it instead of the
county and at the end of ten years
the tax. except for maintenance,
ceases. x
!. r. Pay Out of Crop. n 4
The first payment is not required
until the water has been brought to
the land and one growing season
passed-thus allowing one crop to be
raised before any payment Of any
kind is exacted.
No person can own more than 160
acres of land, the object of the law
being to provide homes for home
builders and it would be found that
100, or half that amount of land un-
der irrigation would be ample to pro-
vide for the sustenance and comforts
OF family. Owners of more than
160 acres would have to agree to
sell-not now, but later on, when the
water is brought to the land. Thus
the land owner and not the Spectator
would receive the benefit of the in
crease in valutes.
The Cost Of Water.
Some questions had been asked
about the cost of water per year on
| the different elevations-that is some,
had wondered if the expense to the.
owner of lands on the lower benches,
where it cost less to pump the water
would have to pay the same as the
higher bench lands Mr.. Storrs ex-
| planned that there would be certain
hxed charges such as canals, admins
tratlon of the associations affairs, etc,
that would be common to ali, but
there would be additional pumping
expense, fuel, labor, ETC., that might
in equity, belong to the higher bench
people. Thus assuming the fixed
| charges at say so cents an acre per
year, the lower bench, involving a
water lift of say rs feet might pay so
cents more per acre, making total
cost for lower bench of about 81 per
annum per acre. On the next bench
the miscellaneous charges might
make it cost $3.50 and the third bench.
~ per acre. The larger the plant the
less the cost to the individual. In the
Bismarck project Ignite coal had
been figured at 50 ton, and this was
certainly an outside figure.
A Few Questions.
Mr. kaufman wanted to know how
1t would be with the owner of say $50
acres of land, one-half of which only
could be irrigated.
Mr. Storrs responded that a posi-.
bllity of that kind of course would re.
lleVe the owner, who would only nav
for the land declared, after surveys,
to be in the irrigable district.
Asked how about an owner of land
VINO. does not actually live on the
land' but lives in the city of Bismarck
would be obliged to live on the land
or provide tenant?
Mr.. Fellows in response quoted tbe
national law which provides that mo
such sale (of land in the district)
snail be made to any person unless he
De an actual bona fide resident on
such land or occupant thereof resid-
ing in the neighborhood of said land
Ihls last clause had been inserted in
the act, Mr.. Fellows explained, to
suit conditions in Utah. which were
exactly as they were here. The land
could be held by owners living in
Bismarck but it must be cultivated
and water tax paid just the same as
the actual resident on the land.
Mr.. Fellows also spoke at some
length on the benefits of irrigation.
both to the individual and to the COM /
munity. It insured good yields every
year and the prosperity of all classes
OF citizens in the vicinity.
Hon. Alex Mckenzie was called ON
Tor his views. He heartily favored
the project-it was most important
one for this section and would be an
object lesson to the whole state. He
urged few remarks from Col. Louns-
berry, who was present and had seen
Continued On pase -