Arizona republican., 1917-03-01

d
| 1t is true, however. that the bulk o.
the land is in private ownership. His
other misstatement is that the water
users of the Salt river project have
not paid 1ne cent toward construc-
ton They have paid about $1,000
coo 10 complete the construction of
the power plants which were COM
mended ny the reclamation service.
They have also assessed themselves
for large sums of money for the con-
Structlon of canals and other works
OF the project. | venture the asser-
! ton that ap to this time they have
actually paid out more money on con-
struCtion than the water users under
any other project.
Mr. MCCracken-In view OF the fact
! that the bulk OF the lana under this
project was in private ownership at
the time the government established
/ works which now make the land
valuable, whereas before that time
they had no value. would il not be
wrong for the government ut this
time TO take the receipts from q man
ufacturing plant or power plant and
apply them to the maintenance
charges of the project. thereby re
lieving these people OF any expense
whatever and poStponing tho time. II
I
charges. which this does?
Mr. Hayden VIII answer that BY
referring You TO the statement which
YOU made = short time ago. When
this work was undertaken it was
never contemplated by anyone, ana
/ certainly not IN the farmers who
signed up, that the cost of the pro-
ject would ever aggregate S6e an acre.
TIE early annual reports OF the rec
lamation service stated that the cost
would be ABOUT $50 per acre
Mr.. AIcCracken - What was the
original estimated cost2
MIR. Hayden-The talk NJ that time.
was about $l5 an acre The general
understanding was II would amount
To about that much. although the
Water SerS association afterwards
agreed to certain other increases. As
| understand IT, about SIS Of the $50
which is charged to them al present
is because of the cost Of power plants.
Now. the water user, are asked to
pay not only the cost Of the irriga :
ton works but the cost Of these
power plants i'm addition, and I can
not see why. + the law says that the
money from power is TO be credited
to the project, the water users are
not justly entitled To get the credit. in
the year in which the money it, earn
ed That is TIE sole issue before this
committee
/ Hr Sinnott-Why should it b.
credited 10 them at the end % 10 on
3 H. years?
Get Il When Profit Earned
Mr, Hayden e. 1t follows logically
! that they should either never get
, credit for the receipts from power OF
J thry should get il when a profit is
! canned; one Of the two things is Ger
tain.
Ar. Davis-it is shown by tho
record that the present law requires a
{ modification 10 reach the results con
3 te.upltted b. this bin and that is the
; purpose Of the niiI Now, while a
BIZ l. pending. legislation being re-
! rairef. 1t would naturally suggest
itself - "1youc TO make that bill
equitable as to an OF the projects
and II it Us the desire Of the con-
ereSs tia, the Salt river project. and
presumably other projects. 3c Ieliev-
3 ed OF the PAYMENTS. in the way that
this bill provides thc bill should &c
further ara provide some means by
j which other projects could be re
I licNcu. Tor example. py the construc-
I ton 81 sugar factories on the Sho-
shCnc project or The construction OIL
sugar factories or canning IA ctories
On other projects where there is NJ
large government investment yieldina
g.: return that is available for can
! collation. of these payments The bill
docs not make provision for any O.
the other projects. and power receipts
lie not large uron any Of the pro-
je"ts except the salt river project L
happens there that there is a large
possibility of power development. ant
an excellent market in the mine!
nearby FOR selling TIE power that ha.
been developed. The amount Of tn,
receipts. 50 far. is running abou
1900 month, net. taking ont tn,
cost Of running the plants and pa
trolling the IiEes. upkeep etc. nee rl'
sip0rN gross.
SIR. Sinnott-You mean on the sal
rigere
Hr Davis-On the salt river.
Mr.. Sinnott-S2j.6 900 month?
Air. Davis-S2J 600 month ne
Approximately l. has been as higl
as S2S.0c0 in the month Of July II l.
. iigher IN tho summer thar in tn
wmter( ara will. it now seems. com
10 about SS00.0G0 : year Two pc
cent If the construction charge, &c
cOrding u the notice that has beel
isslef, s 500, goo, roughly speak
ing. n round numbers. so there vii
ne sarrips Of somewhere in tn
neighborhood Of SIC 00a or $4,000 il
: me net rover receipts. over and abov
me construction charge. making ap
2foXimately Slo0,OO0 in two years, o
s5Zo,uHy ~ fout years. which vii
, probably be enough to pay the fit
] wear also. so that in the first fiv
/ wears after the issue of this motto
5 there VIII he practically no paymen
on consl:uctl
20 mat the SAT- RIVER project whlc
5 ~ - enjoying I9H peheIits 10