The gazette-times. [volume] (Heppner, Or.) 1912-1925, 1922-05-04
EASTERN OREGON MAKES
GOOD SHOWING N ROADS

Through the courtesy of Commits.
sioner Barratt of the state highway
department, we have had the privil
ege of examining a tabulated state.
ment, under date of April %, 1922
showing slileage of roads under con.
tract or completed and funds expend.
ed or obligated by the commission
from 1917 to 1922. In this tabula.
tion has been included U. S. froest
projects upon which agreements have
been executed to date, but the tabu.
lation does not include surveys, ad-
ministration costs or bond interest.
The tabulation is complete with
reference to the counties of the state
eastern Oregon and western Oregon
being set off in separate groups, and
by comparison eastern Oregon makes
the best showing, having constructed
more miles Of road at a little over
one-half the cost Of construction over
western Oregon. Total funds ex-
pended is shown by asummary as
follows:
Eastern Oregon, = Mileages Of
work, total under head Of grading,
979.60; 8S3.l6 miles surfaced, 69.3e
paved. Total cost, Sl7,460,O53,9l.
Cooperation: state, $l0,356,478.03;
counties, $3,775,702.30; railroads,
S88,75l7l; government, S3,239,S7.
Western Oregon. - Mileages OF
work, total under head of grading,
66l.83; 459 .3S miles surfaced, 53S.63
paved. Total cost, $30,33S,SS0.92.
Cooperation: state, $22,957.4l;
counties, $4,2l4,973.97, railroads
Sll9,S964S, government -3,046,-
ASSOC.
In the eastern Oregon group
should be included Hood River coun-
ty which has been kept to itself and
shows the following expenditures
(nder headings as given above)
62.09, 4l,07, 1928; S2,260,02S.3O,
$l,Sl2,306.64, $l43,30000, $304,-
42l.66.
The reort shows that there has in
many cases been very generous CO.
operation on the part of the counties,
and this is quite true Of the eastern
Oregon group. Some three or four
counties in western Oregon make a
very poor showing in this regard, and
the ereport reveals the fact there
they did some political wire pulling
in the earlier history of the state
highway program. For instance
Benton county secured expenditure
o ia total of S9e5,4lO.ll, but of this
she put up but 81 ,960,6S; Columbia
county, $l,9S2,5S3.93 and put up but
$17,296.S1; while Douglas county
made the long haul on the funds by
receiving total of $6,0SS,909.25, Of
which she put up 1896, ,7O3.43 in CO.
operation.
The totals for Morrow county are
Grading, 1870 miles; surfacing
65,77 miles; total expenditure, SS9l,.
9l0.53; state, $6S0,9ll.45; county
$2l0,99e07.
Sometime since in a public meet.
ing in Heppner a statement was
made, when the extension of the
Gillian county portion of the Ore.
gon-Washington highway was under
discussion, to the effect that the state
had put nearly 81, ,000,000.00 into the
highways Of Gillian county, while
the county itself had co-operated tc
the extent of only about S50,00000
BY referring to this report the figure:
are as follows: Total spent, $l,52l,
495.53; by the state, $9SS, ,300S.3l
by the county, $23S,2lS.S9; by the
government, 1924, 4,96S.33. 1t woule
appear that Gillian county has done
pretty we'll in cooperation, consider
ing the fact that she has three state
highawys runnig through her terri
tory and a population of less thar
1000 people to draw from.