Arizona republican., 1916-02-08

water right charges are manifestly greater than the value of water in irrigation.
 Deductions for errors in design or for works of an experimental char actcr which have failed and had to be replaced would be approved more readily if the cost could be imposed on the officer responsible, but if the completed result is worth the total cost, there is DO apparent warrant for making the public, which derived no benefit whatever bear any part of the cost; and the ultimate effect of every deduction or elimination is that the public pays for it.
 We believe it inadmissible to deter mine the project cost of units of work by comparing actually ascertained cost with an estimated cost of some suppositions equivalent or with an es- timate of what the work ought to have cost of some propositions equiv alent or with an estimate of what the work ought to have cost under differ cnt supervision It is impossible to estimate with any accuracy the cost of work extending backward or for ward ten years when this cost is de- pendent on as many contingencies as attended the construction of the works of the Salt River project Tie besg evidence of proper cost is actual cost of honestly conducted work, when the properly selected agencies have de- ViSed a plan or project and that plan , and authorized, by the lawfully con- stituted agency of the government, and carried into execution without the protest of the water users. There have been no charges of dishonesty CT fraud, and it is not competent after the work is completed to set up some alternative design, that may or may net have been considered by the off cial Who executed the work, as a measure of the proper charges to be paid by the water users.
 EIiminations from cost of Roosevelt Dam. The majority report of the local board recommends the elimination Of about two and One-half millions of the cost of the Roosevelt Dam and power canal Some of these costs were investigated by the Interior De partment several years since and the conclusion reached that they were proper costs and should be paid. After careful study, we believe this to be correct It is to be regretted that the contract for the Roosevelt Dam was not made moro explicit as to payment for eXcaVating the spillway. but in terpretatiOns of specifications to con tracts before commencing work under a contract, by the party issuing the specifications, which was done in his instance, is a usual and proper course to follow Tn this case the payments made under this Interpretation were approved by. the Interior Department in its scrutiny of accounts, and by the treasury officials. who evidently en- dOrsed the interpretation.
 Spirit of the contract should govern. The whole spirit of the contract as expressed in the specifications quoted taken in connection with the plans and drawings of the dam is that all work necessary to prepare the site Of the dam, including the spillways as part thereof. should be paid for, either as excavation or as masonry in the dam. It would have been better per haps t. have put this interpretation in the form of a supplementary agree mcnt in order to guard against such contingencies as have arisen. The Iartes to the contract evidently agreed before the work began on the meaning of the specifications and they were compelled to interpret them.
 But. irrespective of this statement, the spillways were essential parts of the dam, excavated in the sidewalks of the canyon. and the excavations pro ided for in paragraph 43 were ap . parently applicable to such necessary sidewall excavations.
 "43. Side walls. Above the bed of river the side walls (of the canyon) shall be cut away until they present surfaces normal to the face of tho dam, suitable, in the judgment of the engineer, for solid and safe junction with the masonry. This shall be paid i for as solid rock, at the price agreed upon Tn the contract.
 Inserted by the Central Board). In paragraph 45. under the head Masonry, it is specified:
 | 45. The stone shall be
 quarried from the walls on each side
 of tEe canyon as shown in the draw i ing as propesd spillWays.
 If sufficient quantity of hard fine l L.. k%a ar
 from the spilIways t shall be quar- ried from the bluffs at either end of
 the dam at locations designated by
 the engineer, at the contractors eX-
 pensc''
 This paragraph clearly and conclu-
 sively dfferentiates between the
 necessary excavation for the spillWays and the ouarrying of stone outside the
 net lines of spillWay excavations, tf
 supplement any possible deficiency 1T
 suitable stone, and in accord with the usual irterDretations fer the spillways
 shall he paid for either as masonry 1T the da.m or as rock excavation iron the sidewalks of the canYOn-Or as elsewhere provided in the contract
 quarrying waste. material elsewhere
 being specifically excluded from pay l TlentS.
 It would be unreasonable to eXpec Ia contractor to eXcavate tons ant
 hundreds of thousands of cubic yard
 of rock in excess of what is required
 for the masonry free of cost, when hi
 price per cubic yard for masonry il
 place plainly indicates that his under
 stending of the specifications whel
 preparing his bid agreed with the of
 ficial interpretation. which is il 1 .trict accord wit h hest nractice of en