Arizona republican., 1916-02-08
CENTRAL REVIEW
(Continued from Page Three)

Government benefactor. The gov crnment was regarded as q benefactor lather than a contractor. and it main tained this role throughout the whole of the construction period. The orig nal contract provided for the storgo work only. but it subsequently de- NelOped that the canal owners had not the capital to put them in condition to . effectively serve the lands embraced in the project, and these works were purchased by the government, en- large,d, extended and, with the dis tributarv system, practically rebuilt. Electric power deyeiopement, intend ed in part for pumping water for irri- aation. but mainly it appears for in dustridl and municipal purposes, was included in the project, this being in tended to render the project more valuable financially to it's ultimate owners
 Interest savings on this project. Not only did the government eXtenc the scope and cost of its original un- deTtaEing in order to enable develop ment to be completed without halt. lut tho terms of payment have been made much more generous than those fixed in the original agreement. or contemplated by the original act. The irrigators under this project have all ready had the use of these works for several wears without any charge for interest on the governments large in Vestment, or any expense except the actual cost of operation and mainten- ance. If they had been charged per cent interest for the past five years il would have amounted to fully $1.500.- 00U For the next five years they are to have the use of these works with only one per cent payment on cost, which .s less than the lowest com mercial interest rate for one year. This. as compared to interest pay ments of irrigators under commercial projects. means a gain in the next five years of about $2,0Q0000. or a saving of $3, 5G0,000 in interest without counting the interest saving of the remaining fifteen years of the pay mcnt period. It is manifest that no commercial contract would have been given these irrigators what they now have at anything like the total cost. The payments, as now arranged, are practically equivalent to a low rate of interest for twenty years with a donation of the whole of the principal.
 Benefits Greater than cost. The fol- low statistics show something of the results which have followed the con- struction of these works. The aver age assessed value of lands before tEe project began was less than $1j an acre. Now it is about $1O0 an acre Before this project was started large percentage of the unimproved lands of the project could have been pur- chased at about $10 an acre, and the price of land with the best water rights was not over $GO an acre. The work of the government has resulted in q continual enhancement of land prices until today but little land can be bought for less than $100 an acre It seems to be well within the truth to say that for every dollar expended hy the United States on those works there has been an increase of $2.00 in the prices of land under the project.
 Method of construction tended to in- crease cost. If this work had been built in accordance with q prearranged or comprehensive plan, it would un Goubtcdlr nave been built more cheap ly It was inevitable that changes of plans and extensions in the original scope of the work would result in some waste and an increase in unit costs. That some mistakes were made that some experiments turned out badly, is admitted by officers of the Reclamation Service and is the con- cluson of this board. But this does rot in any way change our conclusion that conditions in the valley are far better than they would have been had the government restricted it's work to the score of .he original contract and far better than if the project had been carried out with private capital.
 (Ihe letter of the General Review Board to Secretary Lane then enters into a discussion of the economic problems under the project, many ol which have been the result of the construction of the project; referring to the question of increasing land values. the inability of some settlers to pay for their lands as promptly as had been anticipated, the need of securing more favorable interest rates, and tEe natural increase in taxation caused by the large Improvements for schools, good roads, etc, and admits that in view of these various condi- tions. many settlers will find it diff cult to meet the payments in the pro- feet unless liberal credits are made and as a remedy for the settlement of some of the economic difficulties re- ferred to. suggests the following):
 Reduction of project costs not justi- fled. These conditions do not, how ever, in our opinion, justify any re- duction in project costs. The parties really responsible are those who pro- fited by the rise in land prices, and it ;s to them that settlers should look for relief To reduce project costs as a means of aiding the hard pressed settler means a donation to the orig inal land owners who have already been immensely benefited by the governments action. It is situation, however, which this board does not believe should be ignored It is an economic waste and a social in(lstice that settlers who have invested their savinrs and worked hard to improve their farms should lose them. If this can be averted, and this leads us to venture on a recommendation of inau- aurating here a system of rural cred
 -l.: ( I,a cot =