El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1916-02-11
FARMERS TOPAY
S1O,683,012.74
Cost of Roosevelt Dam and
and Canals Determined by
Cost Review Board.

Phoenix. Ariz, Feb. 11.-Salt river
valley fapmers must pay s1O,6S3,O1274
for the Roosevelt dam and their canal
system. This is the finding of the CEN
trail cost review board. composed Of Ell
wood Mead, W. l.. Marshall and j. d.
O'Donnell. It has already been accept
ted bv the secretary Of the interior, who
has issued a public proclamation throw
ing open the project Dec. j, 1916. Pay
ments must then begin, and they VIII
be spread out over a period of 20 years
The project includes 172,34S acres.
cost Reduced by Receipts.
The review board found that the To-
tai cost of the project on June J. l9l"'
was S13.573, $685., but receipts OF -
500. 603.93 brought the amount ooWh 10
S106S3.O12.74. over 100000 was earned
by power plants operated IN cohne n. aco
with the project; approximately SL9oVs-
coo was represented by water rentals
Il is admitted by the central board
that the cost of the project is hlgh put
it is contended that the benefits are
much greater than the cost
Puts Land Value Above 800.
"The average assessed value of lands
before the project began was less Ihah
SIS an acre. Now 1t is about SlOV an
acre the report says BEFORE inns
project was started a large percentage
of the unimprOved lands could have
been nurcbased at about $40 an acre,
ana the price of the land with the pest
water rights was not over sou an acre
The work of the government mas result
ed in a continual enhancement OF land
values until today but little lana can
be bought for less than 500 an acre.
IF this work had been built in ac-
cordance with a prearranged or compre-
hensive plan il would undoubtedly have
been built more cheaply. 1t was ineVl-
table that changes of plans and extern
sions Of the original scope Of the work
would result in some waste and an IN
crease in unit costs. That some mis-
takes were made. that some expert
ments turned out badly, is admitted by
officers of the reclamation service BUT
this does not in any way chanSe our
conclusion that conditions in the valley
are far better than they would nave
been had the government restricted It's
work to the scope Of the original con-
tract
1T is. in fact, open 10 question wheth-
er the government has not done more
than sound public policy requires rms
board seriously questions whether II
has been wise to develop power IN eX-
cess OF irrigation needs at the expense
OF the reclamation fund. Such instala-
tions tie up. and may temporarily eN-
haust funds that might more wisely be
expended in retaining lands than IN
building commercial plants Tor the
benefit of land owners for the purpose
Of diminishing just charges for main
tenance and operation by donating to
them all profits. All such expenditures
for commercial power installations
should be made from funds contributed
directly by those who profit by the
power. or the profit should be turned
into the reclamation fund"
Varies From Local Cost Review,
This report varies greatly from that
OF Prof. Thomas L. Taylor. Frederick
4. Jones and Frank W. Hanna, who
constituted the local cost review board.
Prof Taylor and Mr. Jones found the
gross cost Of the project to be s13,1OO,-
500 and Mr.. Hanna found IL to be Sl3.-
1903 5000. Jones and Taylor recommend
ed that s5.S47.259 be deducted for over
charges and excessive expenses in
Cured through bad management leav-
ing the net cost s7,253.241. Hanna
recommended deductions OF S3,5S2,344.25,
leaving the net cost $9,527515.05.