The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1914-11-13
IMPORTANT NEWS FOR.
THE GOVERNMENT
WATER USERS
Washington D. c.. Nov. 6, 1914.


In addressing this circular to YOU,
the Reclamation Commission is actu-
Rted solely by what it believes to be
the best interests of the water users
on government projects.
From some source there has been
circulated amongst water users a
rumor that by accepting the terms
of the Reclamation Extension Act
water users pledge themselves to pay
an increased construction charge.
This is not true in any sense The
only effect of signing the Reclama-
lates to your present contracts, is to
extend the time Of payments thereon
for 20 years and to make it possible
for you, (should it become necessary
in order to protect your land and pro-
perty), to consent to additional ex-
penditures for drainage or other CON
struction purposes, without compell-
ing you to pay for the same immediat-
ly the work is completed.
The necessity for requiring the ex-
ecution of acceptances of the Recla-
nation Extension Act was forseen bv
the Congress in order to make this
law effective. Otherwise its effect
would have been to impair the obliga-
ton of your contract, making it un-
constitutional and therefore ineffec-
tive.
AS the law now stands, without the
Reclamation Extension Act, any con-
struction expenditures subsequent to
the contract in which the price of
the water right is agreed upon, can
only be recovered by the reclamation
fund through charges made against
the annual operation and maintenance
cost, in the guise of improvements or
betterments.
If the cost of drainage system, for
example, is charged to the operation
and maintenance expense of one irri-
CATION season and this expense con-
Stitutes Gas in some cases it has) an
average of SIS per acre, the result is
to impose on the water user charge
that is greater than he can afford to
pay in one installment. If the install
lation of such a drainage system is
proceeded with only as the water us
ers can afford to pay for it, and if
they can afford to pay only an average
of ST an acre per annum for this pur-
pose, then the construction of the
drainage system is delayed for 5 years
Under the terms of the Reclama-
ton Extension Act, the entire drain
age system may be put in, (even
though it costs $40 or more per acre
to do SOY, in one irrigation season and
the cost of such system may be dis
tributed over the 20 years coincldent
with other construction charges; or,
if the secretary in his discretion de-
sires to do so, it may be distributed
over the several years beginning at the
end of the first 20-year period during
which the construction charges are be-
ing paid.
The above statement is made in
order to remove from your mind any
belief that it is the purpose OF the
Secretary of the Interior or OF the
Reclamation Commission to fasten up
on YOU an obligation to pay more for
your water right than your present
contract calls for
The boards of review which have
been proposed for the purpose OF re-
vising the costs of the various pro-
iects are intended to afford the water
users of all the projects an oppor-
tunity to review the items which have
been charged against the cost OF their
irrigation system, to enable them TO
object to the inclusion therein OF any
items which they think are unfair or
unreasonable charges against such a
SYSTEM The proposal to appoint such
a board came from the water users
themselves and was initia1ly based up
on the theory that such review
would result in a decreased charge
But the insidious rumor has been cir
cu1ated amongst the water users that
the purpose Of this board of review is
to fasten upon them higher charge
This cannot be done. 1t may be that
on some of the projects the cost. as
determined by this board OF review
will be found to be greater than that
named in the contracts, and IN the
public notices heretofore issued. In
such case, the doubt will be forever
dispelled from the mind of the water
user that he has been overcharged OIL
is paying a higher construction charge
than he should have paid, but the in,
creased charge above that PROVIDED
in existing contracts, cannot be col
lected without the consent OF the wa
ter users. 1t is probable however
that in most cases the review VIII re-
suit either in decreasing the charges
or leaving them as they are.
The water user is executing an &C
ceptance to the Reclamation EXten
sion Act does not bind himself tc
vote in favor of an increased charge
nor does he bind himself to pay any
Greater sum than that called Tor II
Els contract. He does, however, by
signing the acceptance, make il pos
sibie to apply the terms of this &C
to his land and the advantages OF thu
act are many. For instance, 1t VII
no longer be proper to charge tSS
operation and maintenance cost sucl
items as improvements or better
mcnts. 1t will not be possible to un
dertaic any large supple alert; | con
struct:on work on the proiec: witioE
the consent of the wafcc users.
The new law, in effect, gives tn
water user ON the government projec
almost the same control over the con
struction expenditures on that pro
iect that he would have IN the mana
cement of an irrigation district unde