Gilpin observer., 1914-08-20
THE RECLAMATION BILL
TIME FOR PAYMENT EXTENDED
TO TWENTY YEARS.
Representative Taylor of Colorado
Tells Salient Features of the
New Measure.

CohsFess ana became a law. 1t Will
afford relief to settlers all over the
West who have taken lands under ir-
r1gation projects of the government
and who have been faced by the ne
cessity, under the old law, of making
payments with the ten-year limit.
Twenty years will now be allowed
them in which to reimburse the gov
ernment
Representative Edward T. Taylor OF
Colorado, who is a member Of the
committee that considered the bill,
and who was in charge Of its passage
through the House, made the follow
Ing analysis of the measure:
The main feature of the bill Is the
extension Of time within which set
tiers are required by law to repay the
government for the construction
charges of the reclamation projects.
This time was ten years under the
old law. 1t has been increased to
twenty years. This change was neces-
sary because the projects very largely
overran the original estimates. Large
numbers of settlers under the present
projects would have lost their homes
II they had been compelled to repay
the government in ten years. or in ten
equal payments; also new settlers
would be very reluctant to come in
under the projects. Under this bill
the payments are not only extended to
twenty years, but no payment at all
Is required for the first five years
after the project is opened. There
after the payments are graduated, be-
ing per cont the first four years
and then per cent the next two years
and per cent in the years following.
"A very beneficial feature Of the ex-
tension bill over which there was a
long, hard fight, is that no interest
whatever is required to be paid by the
settlers upon any of these payments.
There is no other instance in the his
tory of the country where from $780,
100000 to s150.000.0OO of government
money is allowed to be used by set
tiers and not repaid until twenty
years, with no interest charge running
on the loan. OF course we know that
this is not only absolutely fair, but
necessary. However, there was com
plant from those who represented
other portions OF the United States.
They felt that 1t was entirely unrea-
sonable to grant that concession to US
when the farmers generally were try
ing to secure rural credit.
This law is also made applicable to
future projects and there are consider
able administrative details in the bill
for the purpose Of systematizing the
work Of the reclamation service.
THE cultivation requirements de-
manded of the settlers will be for only
one-fourth of the irrigable area Of their
holdings within the first three full irri
cation seasons, and onehalf of the ir-
rigable area within the five full irriga-
ton seasons following the filing OF
the water right application. There is
also a provision In the bill that no
increase In the construction charges
will hereafter be made, excepting by
the consent of majority Of the water
right applicants and entrymen affected
by such increase. The water users
have been insisting upon the provision
for years. The law also gives the en-
trymen under projects two years with
in which to dispose Of their excess
farm unit
The only provision in the bill
which the West generally opposes is
what is known as the Underwood
amendment requiring the Department
of the Interior to annually submit to
Congress estimates and plans Of ex-
penditure en- each OF the various rec
lamation projects, and obtain speci-
fic appropriation from Congress for
that purpose That is. to itemize the
various expenditures and explain them
70 the appropriation committee and
obtain a general appropriation bill, ap-
portioning to each project proper
share OF the money belonging to the
reclamation fund. This provision was
demanded In the House by practically
all OF the representatives from the
North, East and South. and by some
OF these from the West, as necessary
from an economical standpoint, and to
bring about a business-like handling
OF the fund. 1t was insisted that it
was contrary TO good government pol
icy to divert the entire receipts Of the
sale OF public lands into the reclama-
ton fund and allow the director of
the reclamation service freedom to ap-
portion the moneys as he sees fit.
That power. 1t was thought, should be
taken away from the reclamation serv-
ice and returned to Congress. The
reclamation fund. however. was not
changed in any manner. 1t still re-
mains intact, although there was n
very strong effort made to divert pub
lie land proceeds into the general fed
eral treasury. The modification as to
method OF appropriation will affect the
development OF the West. because tho
reclamation fund is set aside to re-
claim arid lands. and Congress will
appropriate It for that purpose. The
House of Representatives and the SEN