Arizona republican., 1914-11-29
HAYDEN EXPLAINS
 THE EXTENSION PAYMENTS BILL
majority of only eight votes.

majority of only eight votes.
 The United States has more lib-
 ral irrigation policy than any other country in the world The only plan that can be compared with it is the scheme now being carried out under the direction Of Elwood Mead in the state of Victoria, Australia. The Vic tOrian government pays 3l2 per cent interest on deposits in it's postal say ings banks. This money is loaned at | r per cent for the construction of irrigation works The farmer pays an annual charge of 6 per cent on the actual cost of construction. The 112 per cent difference between the inter- est rate and the amount paid by the farmer amortizes the debt paying it off in thirty-two years
 Under the reclamation extension act your payments will be , per cent, then 4 per cent and finally per cent for the last fourteen years. These payments are all on the principal and wipe out the debt in twenty years. Another way of look ing at it is that this new law has cancelled the principal of the debt that you owe t0 the government and that by the mere payment of inter est for twenty years, at less rate than any of you can borrow on your lands, you are now able to satisfy your obligations to the United States Certainly no one can complain that such terms as these are not liberal to the American water users
 Permit me to say that copies of the reclamation extension bill were sent out all over the United States
 in ample time for everyone interested to become familiar with it's provisions It was published in the newspapers so that every water user had an opportunity to understand the con tents of the bill. Only one objection came from any water users associa ton in the United States That was from the Belle Fourche project in South Dakota, where they thought the water users ought to have the right to sue the United States because of some difficulty they were having in connection with their project, which they had tried to take into the United States court. Senator Sterling secured the adoption of an amendment pro- viding for such suits, but upon inves- tigatiOn the House struck it out be- cause this would be granting privi- lege denied to other citizens, thus es- tablishing a bad precedent. No other protest came from any organized body of water users in regard to the bill. We understood that everybody was satisfied and when the bill passed that they got what they wanted.
 New Law Does Not Affect Project Cost
 As to the construction charge. l
 want to make it perfectly clear that the reclamation extension act does not bind any water user as to the amount of the project. When the bill was under consideration before the secre- tary of the interior, l prepared an amendment and submitted it to the conference, providing that the secre-
 tary be authorized and directed to re- wise the cost of all the projects, and that the revision be made as soon as ! DTdtll ilt StNitltliy SdlbS " II y is it necessary to pass a law direct i ing me to do something which l al-
 ready have authority to do and which | intend to do?" He said he had l consulted with his legal advisers, who ! assured him that there was no ques- | tion about his authority under the law. as trustee of the reclamation 1 oh that iC luniust. and that he had made up his
 mind to strike off all such improper charges. Therefore it was unncces- sary to adopt my amendment.
 1 I know that the secretary is con vinced that there are items of cost
 assessed against all the projects that ought to be reduced. l know that
 the same plan for revising the cost
 would have ben submitted by MT. | Lane whether the reclamation eXten- 1 ion act had passed or not. So that 1 there is absolutely no connection Ee l tween your acceptance of the ne" 1 law and the amount that you may be | required to pay to the government
 Your liability to pay the construction charge under this project is founded
 on the old reclamation act. which i'
 not repealed. and on the mortgage
 which you have given to the United
 States The new law merely deals
 with the terms of payment not with 1 the amount to be paid.
 I talked with the secretary a num-
 Der of times about the situation here and at Yuma, respecting the con
 struction charge on these projects. explained it to him in this way
 The government is presenting bill
 of $1o.00O, 900 to the people of the
 Salt River valley. It is as though my groceryman sent me statement
 saying that I owed him for $2S.59