The Julesburg grit-advocate., 1914-08-20
THE RECLAMATION BILL
TIME FoA pAYMEAT EXTENDED
TO TWENTY YEARS.
Nepesssstativs TsyIor - Colorado
Tells Salient Features Of the
ksW Measure

| Tells Salient eeAturoo oS the
hsw Measure
| Wsasrn NsvapApsr untea News ss~viesL
Waahingtoo.-The reclamation e.
tension bill reached final passage in
Coagrsss and became . law 1t will
o(ford relief u settlers all over the
| West Who have taken lands under ir-
rtgAtton projects Of the gove4nmsnt
| and who have been faced by the ne
esssity. under tho old Law. of making
payments With the ten-year limit
Twenty ysan will now be allowed
then In which to reimburse the gov
| ernment
Representative Edward 7. Taylor Of
Colorado. who II . member Of the
com mmittee that considered the bill,
and who was In charge Of its passage
through the House. made the fellow
Ing ANALYSIS Of the measure:
The main feature Of the bill 10 the
extension Of time within which set,
tiers are required BY law to repay the
government for the construction
charges of tho reclamation pro1scts
This time was ten years under the
old law. 1t has been increa sed TO
twsaty years. This change was necss-
sary because the projects very larxely,
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 b very reluctant to come In
under tho projects. Under this bill
the payments are not only extended to
twenty years. but NO payment at all
10 required for the first five years
after the project II oponed. There
after the payments are graduated. b.
ing per cont the first four years
and then 4 per cent the next two ysars
and s per cent in the years following.
"A very beneficial feature Of the az
tension bill over which there was q
long, hard fight, In that NO interest
whatever 10 required TO Be paid by the
settlers upon any Of these payments.
There II no other instance In the his
tory Of the country where from $780,
o00. 900 to s150,0o0,ooO Of sovernmeot
money b allowed to b used By set-
tiers and not repaid until twenty
yearA with no interest charge running
On the loan. OF course we know that
this Is mot only absolutely fair, but
necessary. However. there was com
plant from those Who represented
other portions Of the United States
They felt that Il was entirely unrsa-
soaable to grant that concession 70 n
when the farmers generally were Try
ing 70 secure rural credit.
This law II also made applicable to
future projects and there are eooaAer.
able administrative details in ths bill
for the purpose Of systematixins the
work OF the reclamation service.
The cultivation requirements de-
manded Of the settlers VIII be for only
one-fourth Of the irrigable area Of their
holdings within the first three full iryt-
cation seasons. and one-haH Of the ir-
rigable area within the five full iIrigar
tion seasons following the filing Of
the water right application. There is
also . 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 on each OF the various reo-
lamation projects, and obtain a speci-
fic appropriation from Congress for
that purpose. That is, to itemize the
various expenditures and explain them
to 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. It was insisted that 1t
was contrary to good government pol
icy to divert the entire receipts OF the
sale Of public lands into the reclamae
ton fund and allow the director OF
the reclamation service freedom to ap-
portion the moneys as he sees tit
That power. it 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
very strong effort made to divert pub
liz 1and proceeds into the general fed