The Churchill county standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1908-1920, 1916-08-16
REPORT Of LOCAL BOARD OF review
ON PROPER CHARGES AGAINST PROJECT
SUGGEST Elimination Of S30OO of Original Cost Due to Eend
lures Made for Benefit of 900 Acres Later Dropped From
Project and for Abandoned Canals Destroyed by Elements

been constructed and other expendi-
lures made for much larger areas
than the areas which most recent
and reliable estimates indicate will
be ultimately served from these
works
Seeond-Laterals and appertain-
ing structures have been constructed
10 serve certain areas, which are
now known to be non-reelaimable.
Third-Parts of the system have
been constructed to serve lands.
which may be ultimately irrigated,
but the construction has been so far
IN advance of any settlement, that it
would not have been economical to
maintain these parts of the system
| IN operating conditions. They have
rot been used and have been largely
destroyed the bitches have been
filled in with drift sand and the
STRUCTURES have deteriorated so as to
be Of no future value even If the
lltche5 were reconstructed.
The Board has adopted the policy
/ that an expenditure pertaining to a
/ lateral or other part of the system is
proper charge against the land it
was intended to serve and for which
it was constructed or made and that
the charge is appurtenant to the
.and. II does not believe that where
the area has been reduced that the
smaller area should bear the charges
OF the lands which have been ex-
cluded. Ii believes that this policy
is sound and in accordance with
good Judgment. An argument for this
policy, which the Board, believes can
not be disputed is that, If as has
often been suggested, a project was
not open to entry until the project
was entirely completed, the cost
fixed by public notice would then be
1xed for the entire area and any
later reduction I'm area would result
IN a loss of the refundable cost which
could not be collected from other
lands 1t also believes that expen-
dltnres pertaining to the third class
Of works which have never been used
and have no future use should be
eliminated.
Another important consideration
urged by the representative of the
water users, is that all expenditures
made for general examination, sur
.veys, Investigations. which are made
preceding tie construction and are
in the nature of those pertaining to
secondary projects investigated by
the Reclamation Service. are not
proper charges TO be refunded by
/ the Waterusers to the government.
The argument for this view is that
/ the Reclamation Act of 1902 gives
authority to make the necessary ex-
aminationg and Investigations to de-
termine the feasibility of projects
Where these expenditures have been
made for projects which are found
] 10 Dt nut ltdbibits AAA0At 10 hc
method to refund the Government
/ for these expenditures. 1t is there
fore urged by the Water Users rep
resentatiye that the Interpretation of
the Act by officials of the Reclama-
tlon Service is not correct, and that
these preliminary expenditures are
made in order that the government
obtain the facts regarding the utili-
zation and development of its re-
sources, for the welfare of the
country as a whole; this having
special force on project like this
one where a large part of the land
/ was in public ownership.
Brief Statement of Original and
Present Plan of Project.
Continued on Page Three)
-~--~@~-~J~~-~-~~~~-~~~ -~~~--~~~-~S~~-~~~-~~~~~~~-~
-