Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-03-09
Director Newell Combats the
Views Of James ]. Hill.
COMPARISON WITH CANADA
Chief Of Reclamation Service Defends
the Work Of This Govern
ment's Agents.

F. III. Newell, director OF the reclama-
ton service. yesterday afternoon gave
out a statement combating views pub
lished yesterday and credited to James j.
Hill, president OF the Great Northern
Railway Company. In Mr.. Hills state
ment the declaration was made that gov
eminent irrigation works cost far too
much, and that irrigation works on this
side of the American boundary cost twice
as much as the same works would cost
| in Canada.
| Director Newell said:
James j. Hill evidently is not well In.
formed. If he states, as quoted, that
the government irrigation works cost
twice as much as they should cost and
twice as much as the same work would
cost in Canada. There are no accurate
data in existence which would uphold
such a statement. The figures which
are available show that the government
work has been executed at cost rela-
lively less than that Of private work.
Average Cost Discussed.
Taking 100 or more of the irrigation
systems recently completed or which are
under construction by corporate capital
LII diI pdlt 10 VI TlAC aLl0 WCSAs lIC dNSi aSC
cost per acre OF water from these Is not
far from 500, while the average cost OF
the works being built by the government
in the same period is about $45 per acre.
There is a far wider difference In IA
vor Of the government works. because of
the fact that these are usually built not
to make money, but with regard to per-
manence,'' Director Newell continued.
The larger structures are of concrete,
as against timber on many OF the private
works. But the far more important fact
is that the water supply is more care
fully safeguarded on the government
works, SO that in times of scarcity OF
ment projects are far better assured of
the needed supply.
Questions HILLS knowledge.
"As matter Of fact Mr.. Hill probably
does not know the real cost Of the works
built in Canada. II he could obtain the
full data, including all of the so-called
overhead charges and every other ex-
penditure, and also obtain fair appraisal
OF the works as completed, he would
probably be surprised at the real cost
per acre actually irrigated"
lone of the most common fallacies,
declared Mr.. Newell. is to take a state
nient regarding cost of irrigation some
thing as follows, that 81 ,O00. 900 has been
expended in irrigating 10000 acres, or
$40, per acre. As matter of fact, water
may have been brought into the main
canals to points where it commands
10000 acres, but careful analysis shows
that at no one time has more than 10000
acres been actually irrigated. nor can q
large proportion Of the whole 100000
acres be furnished with water with the
works. as constructed, so that instead Of
being remarkably cheap at SO an
acre the works as built have really cost
nearly $50 per acre for the lands actually
furnished with dependable supply OF
water.
This is the kind OF statement popu-
larly used In condemning government
works and employees.
- Regarded az Indefensible.
.sThe extravagant statements attributed
to AIR. Hill are indefensible, and will re-
main SO until public opinion forces canal
owners, as in the case OF other public
utility corporations. to make public their
expenditures and require proper physi-
cal valuation of the works resulting from
the expenditures. Mr.. Hill will have ac-
cOmplished public service IL his utter