The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1905-06-14
THE MILK RIVER PROJECT.

~ 0HRC0G9 eAoV VOO00NAO0 VuO tA0A
the intern ational difficulty with Can.
ada have developed in connection with
the Milk river project, and unless
these can be overcome there may be
prolonged delay in commencing the
work of construction. An importan,
meeting Of residents of the Milk val.
ley will be held at Glasgow this week,
at which the lei complications and
all other matters affecting the enter
prise will be discussed, and efforts
be made to arrive at q satisfactory
adjustment of all the interests con-
cerned.
According to inform alton which
reaches the River Press, there are
two features Of the regulations adopt.
ed by the government reclamation
service to which many residents Of the
Milk river valley take exception.
One Of these is q rule to the effect that
no person can secure water from the
proposed canal in excess Of an amount
sufficient to irrigate 100 acres--a regu.
lation which is not acceptable to many
who own ranches which are larger
than q quarter section of land. BY
the exercise of industry and frugality
they have acquired ranch property of
a few hundred acres-some of it by
complying with the federal land laws
before government irrigation was con.
templated, and other portions of the
property having been secured by pur.
chase from settlers who concluded to
sell. These thrifty and progressive
northern Montana farmers object to
any c~oercive regulations that will
compel them to dispose of land that
has been legitimately acquired. Many
of them are willing to purchase water
rights from the proposed government
canal to an extent sufficient 10 irri.
g ate more than 100 acres, at the price
established by the reclamation service,
and object to any ruling that deprives
them of terms accorded to owners of
smaller ranches.
They contend that present owners
Of quarter section tracts, after COM
pleting payment for their government
water right, may decide to sell the
property to q purchaser who owns
other irrigated ranches and who would
then be in possession of q larger tract
than at present recognized as proper
by reclamation bureau officials. If
that a be done ten years hence, they
fail to see the justice OF withholding
water right privileges from those who
own in excess of 100 acres at the pres
ent time.
Another threatened complication re-
lates to the proposed absorption Of
existing canals constructed by local
irrigating companies upon terms that
are not satisfactory to the latter. In
the vicinity OF Chinook and Harlem
there are irrigating systems that were
constructed at heavy expense by or
CARNATIONS Of local ranchers. These
canals have been q good investment;
they have been a great success in irri'
eating the land they were designed tc
cover, and their owners are receiving
about as much benefit from them al
they would get from q government ca
nal. After having purchased thei1
land by reclaiming it at heavy ex
pense, they fail to recognize justice il
q proposition that they sell their irri
eating systems to the reclamation bu
reau at q nominal figure and pay TO
the land u second time by PURCHASING
government water rights at $25 a
acre.
! OF course it would be to the advau
tage OF the general community ii tn
owners of land in EXCESS of 100 acre
would sell their surplus ranch prop
erty and conform to the regul alton
3 made by the reclamation bureau.
e would also very much facilitate ma
tiers If owners of existing and success
: full irrigating systems would dispos
e Of them to the government, and rer
l. their water supply from the propose
Milk river canal; but these men al
human and consider their own intel
ests before those of others. The latte
would probably look at the propos
ton the same way II the condition
1 were reversed.
These obstacles to the Milk rive
e project appear somewhat serious
y the present time, but it is hoped son
o method of adjusting the trouble wi
!. be devised.
u. state Lands Under Lease.